How local is Local?

For many people, today's unitary local government units are almost as remote and unresponsive as Whitehall: it's "them", The Council.

Should we be giving more power and responsibility to much smaller units of local government - perhaps even streets or blocks of flats? For example, should it be the council or the local residents' association who decides what parking restrictions should apply?

comments:

Yes, and no... --jockox3, Sat, 12 Nov 2005 04:29:42 +0000 reply
There are areas, and your example of local parking restrictions may be a good one so long as there was a mechanism for input from outside the neighbourhood responsible (traffic flows and so on affect many areas). But perhaps also more specialist bodies. An elected School District Board for example would attract people with a specific interest in education but who really would not be terribly interested in whether there's residents parking or not.

On housing, for example, the Community Gateway model being piloted in Preston, aims to devolve as many aspects of neighbourhood management down to streets and neighbourhoods when capacity exists to do so.

Development control can often come down to neighbourhood level as well - I hear in Denmark they have specialised local panels elected to deal with planning applications, for example, and a very limited, local input to planning policy. We already have villages/parishes doing Parish Needs Assessments and Parish Design Statements and so on. There needs to be checks and balances of course, and a way for wider community interests to input into these more localised decision and policy making structures.

local...it..i(e)s --ianstewart, Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:24:06 +0000 reply
I see the problem as one of discrete units. Reality is that there aren't any, as everyone is interdependent with everyone else. One units parking solution might just move the problem to somewhere else.

Perhaps we should be attempting to ensure that locally elected representatives actually act as a two-way conduit of information/views, both consulting with their electorate and ensuring that this (often multiplicity) view is comprehended when any decision is made. One of the difficulties is telling people "no", what might be OK for you will have a negative impact upon your neighbours.

Social Cohesion --phirst, Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:21:51 +0000 reply
I add this as my contribution to the debate on why localism is imortant.

Peter Hirst

In this short article, I would like to ask some basic questions concerning social cohesion. What is it? Does it matter? And if it does what can be done to increase it? Social cohesion means different things to different people. To me it is the feeling that the members of a community have a unifying bond between them. This presupposes what a community is. You can have a county’s social cohesion or a street’s social cohesion with all sizes in between. The concept must have especial regard of those people on the margins of the community whether this is because of their age, race, job, poverty, religion or way of life.

How then does social cohesion differ from culture or community? A community has a culture if it does things in a certain way. Culture contributes to social cohesion enormously though it is not essential for it. A community can have or not have both culture and social cohesion.

Social cohesion is thus about how people view others in their community especially those who are different in some way from themselves. It is an intangible entity though people living in an area know if it exists there. It is that feeling that you are living in a community that cares about what is going on to other people in that community. To care you need to know. . It must therefore include knowledge of others and their lives for it is ignorance that fosters prejudice and intolerance. However, it is more than knowledge; it also encompasses interest and a feeling that you benefit from others different from yourselves. It is that feeling of concern and sympathy for those effected by the miseries of life. It does involve some invasion of privacy though in a rather abstract way without involvement. Perhaps this is important when we come to discuss the other two questions posed at the beginning. The people on Coronation Street seem to accept that everything they do is common knowledge on the Street. Perhaps this is a price we have to pay for social cohesion, namely a certain amount of invasion of personal privacy.

You also need to know who else lives in the community and what is going on to affect them. So how do you know who lives in your community. The best way is to hold a conversation with others in the community about others in it. In other words, gossip, a much-maligned word that in reality is what motivates people to care. Of course, it can become malicious though that depends on the people holding the conversation. There is also observation of what goes on that was easier when people walked more. However, it is still possible and the recognition of cars, milk bottles and curtains all play a part. Another way is by reading the local papers.

Similar methods are used to discover what is going on. Because of time pressures, I suspect less time is spent talking and more reading the papers to discover what is happening. Another method is to have a wider perspective. It amazes me how certain occurrences are copied all over the country. For instance, relatively minor arson attacks such as fires in litterbins are little known until one reaches the regional or national news. However, more minor episodes are happening all the time in most neighbourhoods. By listening to the national news, you can build up a picture of what might be happening in your vicinity with a little extrapolation and imagination. It does require some curiosity and that is a vital part of social cohesion.

Social cohesion is more than what and who however. It is more than tolerance that is rather fragile. It is to do with caring about others. The words, knowing what and who, and caring are interlinked. Without knowing who lives there, the facts though interesting are just that. Without knowing what is happening there is nothing to care about. Without caring the knowledge does not result in increased social cohesion.

Does social cohesion matter? We all can choose whom we acquaint with freely and without geographical constraint and surely, this is a good thing. There is however a price. We tend to assume that because there is no overt resistance to our community disintegrating that all is well. That because we are benefiting from our associations that so will everybody else. Or perhaps we simply do not care. Then when we are confronted with acts of antisocial behaviour we either minimise its effect arguing it is an isolated event, reason that it is inevitable or blame someone or something such as the council, the police or parents.

One of the most potent forces that we all need is attention. Children crave it and adolescents demand it. Even adults value it. Another is belonging. We all need to feel we belong to a society and to make our individual contribution to it. Perhaps a broken window is one person’s act of belonging. To be valued is also important. We ignore these societal values at our peril. Social cohesion promotes, cherishes and values them.

Another consequence of the lack of social cohesion is the sense of isolation that I have referred to earlier. Does it matter if we live in distinct communities with little knowledge, interest or concern as to what is happening fifty yards away? After all, it is the police forces job to protect us. The events of September show us what could happen if social cohesion breaks down. Perhaps people in those communities suspected that something was amiss. However, they did not know to whom to turn. After all these would be mere suspicions or less. Moreover, isolated from the wider community they did not feel the pressure to act or even felt some sympathy for those who might harbour thoughts of violence, being unaware of the human impact such actions might involve. Confronting the possibility at least acknowledges that something could be wrong. Social cohesion acts as a safety valve against such acts of violence. This is not to condone the actions, merely to point out possible causes. It is no good blaming individuals when it our society in general that is to blame.

The immersion in different cultures enables us all to be aware of possibilities of what might be being thought. This can then be discussed so action can be taken before they become ingrained and part of a culture without the consequences being explored. If you accept the above chain of causality, social cohesion does matter and it matters a lot.

What then can be done about it? What price are we as a society prepared to pay for more social cohesion? Would we be prepared to change how we live our lives, who we talk to, who we gather with to promote social cohesion? Or would we prefer to pay lip service to it, knowing that nothing will change. Does where we live alter our social cohesion? There is some evidence to suggest that we increasingly want to live with those of a similar lifestyle. Does this matter or are we becoming a segregated country voluntarily or even without realising it? Would we prefer government to legislate to force us to live in areas we would otherwise prefer not to? Alternatively, perhaps financial inducements to live somewhere that would not be our first choice should be introduced.

If I am right about the cause of social cohesion, it is the continual mixing of the various sectors that make up your neighbourhood that will contribute to it. This means wherever people mix in schools, shops, in churches, at sport, social and cultural events contribute to social cohesion. Attending functions provided by those different from you helps. The continual immersion in the culture of others also helps.. Therefore, it is as important for those in different cultures to provide opportunities for these as it is for others to attend what is offered. The above has implications for faith schools, place of worship, where you live, shop and play. Common activities such as going to the local football match, attending a local community event or even sharing in a common tragedy are one step further up the ladder of social cohesion.

It is above all by having conversations with others that you know little of that friendship are formed. People have known this for generations. The art of forcing yourself to talk to that person across the street about whom you know so little when you see her gardening was perhaps performed more fifty years ago than now. Proximity gives us all the opportunity to have these conversations that form bonds. It is these bonds ultimately that create the strength of a society and that will survive when it is threatened.

Perhaps it is then for government at all levels to create the environment where it is easy for these things to happen. To what extent should this be encouraged if it interferes with personal liberty especially as it affects where you live, where your children go to school and where you shop? People are naturally curious about others in their communities. It is better they inform their curiosity with knowledge than fuel it with suspicion based on ignorance. We all need encouraging to do those things that we know we should, though without help find it hard to do.

In my hometown of Middlewich, we have recently instituted a Vision Project that actively seeks out views from the members of the community about what they think are the important improvements that they would like to see within it by surveys and questionnaires. I am sure similar thing are happening all over the country. By combining such surveys with public meetings and workshops, we have been able to build up a picture of what the community want. If this process is seen as being owned by the community rather than the Council or any other group then this seems to me to be an excellent way of building social cohesion. It is vital however to actively seek out minority groups and include them and others who would not otherwise be engaged in the various steps. It is also important to have feedback sessions that feed into the process so that there is a continuous loop of seeking and reporting and more seeking, including all who wish to get involved. All this costs money and as a society we must be prepared to invest in the glue of social cohesion.

One other aspect of social cohesion is involvement through local government. If we as a community have a say in what is done in our locality we feel more interest in it. Part of this is meaningful consultation, part is local elections in which a better electoral system is a vital part, and part is true accountability. As a recent Centre for Reform article has suggested proper accountability is essential for public services, especially those without democratic oversight such as the health service. Perhaps it is time to look at direct elections for boards overseeing for instance our local hospital. If this were accompanied by transparency and openness then the people would have a say. This would, I believe, contribute to a strong feeling of social cohesion. “We” is a marvellous word especially when it achieves something such as a change of senior management of a previously respected organisation that has let society down. By contributing to an improvement in our public services a more vibrant community is formed, that promotes social cohesion.

There are also barriers to social cohesion. Whether it is the dual carriageway that separates different sides of a street or an out of town supermarket that causes local shops to close, or a sprawling housing estate where there are only about six houses within a hundred yards. Whether it is the fear of crime that prevents people going out after dark, the myriad of emails that require responding to, or just the frantic lives that people lead, leaving little time for chatting. These are all common sense obstacles and could be alleviated if there was a will. Perhaps this is the crux of the matter. Like other things in our lives, social cohesion is something we pay lip service to. When to achieve it we however need to change what we do, we balk at the prospect, making excuses. It is only when something catastrophic happens that we become aware that something needs to be done. By then, it is more difficult, expensive and time consuming to achieve. The superficial attraction of applying sticking plaster solutions then becomes almost irresistible.

Lastly, social cohesion is difficult to measure. There are no targets for social cohesion. No league tables for it. This is not to say it is not important. It has become regrettably the culture of our society to value what is easily measurable. This is not an excuse, merely one explanation why we have not given social cohesion the importance it deserves. It is not too late to reverse this trend. It does however require a mindset that concentrates on long-term solution to this and similar problems