Category Archives: Citizenship in the 21st Century

The future of rural Europe?

Posted on by
Reply

Have you ever wanted to be a Member of Parliament: no, me neither! But last week I participated in the second European Rural Parliament, in Schärding, Austria, as one of five delegates from rural England. This was very different to how we usually imagine a Parliament. At its heart is intended to be the voice of rural people, asserting the need for partnership between civil society and governments in addressing the big societal challenges. This innovative, and inspiring, process may be of interest for social movements and social renewal in many spheres – not just the rural.

ERP

The idea originated in the Nordic countries, and the Swedish experience in particular caught the imagination of other countries, initially Estonia and Hungary and then many more who now hold rural parliaments – from Scotland, Netherlands and USA to Lithuania, Slovenia and Cyprus. This European Rural Parliament was held under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, and co-funded by the European Commission through the Europe for Citizens programme. It was jointly initiated by three pan-European rural networks, ERCA, PREPAE and ELARD.

This European Rural Parliament process began with national campaigns in 36 European countries, with each campaign focused on organising an “upward cascade of ideas” which “truly draws upon the hopes and concerns of rural people”. These campaigns varied greatly in depth and detail, according to the national context: for example, Scotland relayed the main conclusions from last year’s Scottish Rural Parliament, while Portugal’s national rural network Minha Terra organised more than 170 local or regional events with nearly 4000 participants. These ideas from the grassroots were synthesised at national level, for use in national campaigning, and then at European level last week, leading to the agreement and affirmation of a European Rural Manifesto. The 250 delegates to the European Rural Parliament from all the countries involved in the cascade of ideas drew on the contents of the national reports during two intensive days of workshops and plenary meetings, distilling their contents and then debating line by line, finalising and adopting the European Rural Manifesto. We also endorsed the broad contents of a book “All Europe Shall Live – the voice of rural people”, which synthesises the national reports and draws out the main issues.

The generous spirit in which all these discussions and debates took place was impressive and inspiring, reflecting but also generating mutual respect, energy and enthusiasm. The process reflected the diversity of rural Europe but also asserted common values and a shared vision. The Manifesto calls upon the EU and national governments for full recognition of the right of rural communities to a quality of life, standard of living and voice equal to that of urban populations.

“Our vision for the future of rural Europe is of vibrant, inclusive and sustainable rural communities, supported by diversified rural economies and by effective stewardship of high-quality environment and cultural heritage. We believe that rural communities, modelled on that vision, can be major long-term contributors to a prosperous, peaceful, just and equitable Europe, and to a sustainable global society.   The pursuit of our vision demands in every country a refreshed and equitable partnership between people and governments.  We, the rural people and organisations, know that we have a responsibility to give leadership and to act towards our own collective well-being. But we also fairly demand that governments at all levels, including the European institutions, work to make this crucial partnership effective.”

The Manifesto goes on to address the social, economic, political and environmental challenges facing rural Europe while also emphasising the potential contribution rural areas and people can make to European and national as well as local and regional goals, if supported by governments and international institutions. Importantly it asserted the rights of people, whoever they are and wherever they live, and the shared responsibility of governments and civil society to promote human flourishing in rural and urban areas alike.

Both the Rural Manifesto and the report, All Europe Shall Live – the voice of rural people, can be found on the European Rural Parliament website, along with much more information.

Professor Mark Shucksmith, Director of Newcastle Institute for Social Renewal

National Hate Crime Awareness Week

Posted on by
Reply

A one-day conference to the highlight the impact of hate crime and explore how the North East can work together to tackle has been hosted by Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner, Vera Baird and the North East Racial Equality Forum (NEREF), as part of a week-long programme of events to mark National Hate Crime Awareness Week.

A crime is considered to be a hate crime if someone has been targeted because of a protected characteristic, these include: race, faith, religion, gender, disability, gender identity, age or sexual orientation.

The conference which was held yesterday was attended by an invited list of delegates and featured a line-up of prominent national and regional academic, practice-based and community speakers who will focus on ways to combat hate crime.

Also taking place at the conference were a range of participative workshops run by key local organisations on topics such as addressing hate crime in the community.

Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner, Vera Baird, said: “Putting victims first and tackling hate crime are important priorities for me and that’s why I was very keen to help fund a conference for people in the region to come together – to share best practice and ways to advance it.

“We are delighted to have a line-up of leading academics and practitioners on board from a range of organisations, who can provide valuable insight on the latest developments in challenging hate crime.

“I am committed to ensuring that Northumbria Police listen to all our communities and meet regularly with a range of advisory groups to hear the thoughts of members of communities including LGBT, Disability and Belief, BME and Faith.

“I will continue to work with the Chief Constable to ensure Northumbria Police addresses all concerns and offers the best possible help and support to victims so they feel assured that they will be protected by the Criminal Justice System.”

Detective Chief Inspector Deborah Alderson from Northumbria Police, who will be speaking with Caroline Airs from the CPS on prosecutions in relation to hate crimes, said:

“This event is a great opportunity to get people who can have a real impact on the way that hate crimes are dealt with together in one place and share information and ideas on how to do it better.

“I think the victims that have volunteered to come along and share their experiences with those at the conference are incredibly brave and they are really helping improve the way that police and partners deal and respond to hate crimes.”

Throughout the week police will be running the ‘Being you is not a crime. Targeting you is’ campaign encouraging people to come forward and speak to police and partners about hate crime.

Further information on Hate Crime is available on the Northumbria Police force website.

The Census: why it matters

Posted on by
Reply

The UK Census is a well-established national data gathering tool, which is then used for many different analyses, but there are some gaps in what it covers. Consultation is underway on the Census 2021. The closing date for responses to the Census Consultation is Thursday 27 August.

2021 Census director, Ian Cope, says: “Information based on census data is heavily used to improve decision-making by local and central government, the health and education sectors, businesses, and by community and voluntary bodies. Of course society changes in the 10 years between each census, so we’re asking you to tell us what information you will need in 2021.”

Newcastle University statistician, Tom King, explains the importance of the Census and why having your say in the topics which it surveys is vital to understanding who and what matters in society.

Census

Census 2021: Consultation

Census has a particular importance in the public engagement with our society and how it is structured. It goes to very single household, and seeks to classify aspects of our society into groups. In this way, it can shape our understanding of our own society, and what is important to our society. In many ways it is the basis for societal planning for a whole decade, as it is the only source of detailed information.

For many groups, getting a question in the census to recognise their status is of profound importance. While what is measured gets done, when something is not measured it may not be known to exist at all. Census figures form the basis of all government activity, so any further information has to come from other sources, which only more specialised groups will access. This means the consultation for census topics is always hotly contested, and many more topics are proposed than can be surveyed.

Timeline for Consultation

It may seem strange that the census is running its consultation for topics to be surveyed in 2021 six years ahead of time. But this is because it is such a huge project, often being compared to a military campaign in its scale. It also follows a rigorous testing process, so that as well as typical questionnaire development, there is also a full scale census test run two years in advance to evaluate operational processes and new questions.

Census is different to other surveys in the UK, with a statutory requirement for householders to make a census return or face a fine. The questionnaire itself is approved by parliament, another stage in the long development process.

This is not necessarily a rubber stamp, with the question on religion being introduced by parliament at this stage.

This question is framed as optional, not a caveat the statisticians were allowed, but one which was repeated in 2011.

Background to the Census

When national censuses was originally conducted, typically beginning in the 19th century, they were the only systematic source of information on a country’s population. They relied on enumerators visiting every household on census day to record their details and this process continued into the 20th century due to popular illiteracy. Census has changed, with self-completion forms and by introducing usual or ‘de jure’ residence to replace the original ‘de facto’ qualification which caused many strange anomalies.

The statistical approach has also changed and the census sits within a portfolio of detailed surveys collected by the National Statistics Office. This reflects a need for more detailed information on some issues, such as crime, and the introduction of statistical sampling of households which required a register of addresses. There are also follow up surveys to test the coverage and accuracy of the data, trying to identify who may have been missed or misclassified.

CEnsus 2

Who is included in the Census?

It is confusing to many people to describe the problem of people being missing from the census. Certainly as the number missing (around 6%) is nowhere near the number of people fined. But at 94% census has a higher response rate than any other survey, and it is the only survey to capture some population groups, such as those living in large and secure communal establishments, and the homeless. Although the overall total is totemic, it is the local geographical detail which is important.

No other source of information tells us exactly how many people live in small areas with enough detail about them e.g. their age and sex, for this to be useful for demographic models. This is why the plans to shift to administrative data on which to base census enumeration are still in development. You may believe that the government knows everything about you but the fact is they don’t, and what they do know they don’t share, even for statistical purposes.

It is often pointed out that other countries have moved to an administrative system, but their data rely on population registers, and often unique ‘social security’ or similar numbers. Britain has none of these, and in fact the census goes out without assuming anything, admitting those who are irregular, or people who would prefer not to be the part of any system at all. More than that, we collect other information on the characteristics of our population, in a detail other countries envy.

These are the topics which are so hotly contested by societal groups, while the statisticians worry themselves much more about the missing people.

Government departments, and more local relations, are the source of many questions on economic activity and education, as well as the myriad questions on ethnicity. But it is the local people who see the consequences of what it is chosen to measure and how they are to be classified, and census can only take place by popular consent, as in the community exception to the human rights act.

At present, the framing of question about activity covers attending education, working and acting as a carer for someone. This excludes a large swathe of human activity, and discounts the activity of anyone who is retired, by recording no information on any voluntary role they may have. In the particular case of transport, this means that our only detailed transport data is around commuting patterns, because it is only main mode of travel to work which is queried.

Travel and Transport: An Example

Travel planning is aimed particularly at the stress on the transport network seen in the morning rush hour, when it is closest to capacity. But anyone who actually travels to work will have noticed the difference during school holidays which cannot entirely be due to commuters being away on holiday. Similarly, university towns will notice a difference in traffic patterns during the vacations, but this portion of commuting is not collected in the census, despite its obviously localised nature.

At the heart of the transport question is one of the main reasons for having a census which has yet to be addressed.

By linking two addresses, whether as main and second homes, or within country migration, or travel to work, we see data about the flow of people around our country. A survey cannot possibly achieve this due to the small numbers seen (hence the highly uncertain figures about migration) yet this tells us a lot about our society and how we are changing.

Census 3

There are many specific topics close to many hearts for which the census is not the right source. But the census does form a direct intrusion of how our society is classified on each of us, which we should be in control of. By introducing doubt into the minds of victims of sexual assault, police were able to reduce the number of people who believed there had been a crime. Similarly, by not seeing something which is an important feature of our lives in the census questionnaire can diminish our confidence in its importance.

An example from my own experience, is the use of the travel to work data in public consultations on transport plans in Newcastle. It is widely reported that only 1.7% of people cycle in Newcastle as a reason not to accommodate cyclists in redevelopments and reallocation of the road space. But this figure is from the census and includes only those commuting by bicycle as the longest part of their journey to work: the framing is that those are the only people who matter.

Students, at school, college or university are not counted, neither are those who travel by bicycle only part of the way and it also does not consider anyone who was unemployed at that time. This is strange if there is a local school in the area where development is proposed, but is particularly flawed in the context of the money being spent. The Cycle City Ambition Fund required bids from local authorities, and all the awards were made to university towns, but there is no data on how students travel to university.

Conclusion

Not everyone is comfortable reasoning with statistics, and the census is compelling in that way as it can be viewed as a true figure rather than an estimate. Students who might like to dispute the prevalence of cycling and advocate for students for equal consideration might turn to look for data to support them, but there isn’t any.

Embracing the use of simple evidence from the census into discussions in public consultation requires the data collected to reflect our society, or those not measured will not count.

——————————————————————————————————-

Author: Tom King, is a statistician in the School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, Newcastle University. His research interests are public statistics and inference from longitudinal social data. Thus this incorporates communicating the relevance of social measurement, typically from large datasets. He is a fellow of the Royal Statistical Society.

If you would like to contribute to a response to the Consultation from Institute for Social Renewal, please contact Fiona.Simmons@ncl.ac.uk

The Labour leadership election and the challenge to the style of modern party politics

Posted on by
Reply

Professor Mark Tewdwr-Jones, Professor of Planning in Newcastle School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, argues in this NISR blog that more is at stake in the Labour leadership election than the future of the one party. What has been demonstrated by the leadership contest is that voters are troubled by the sameness of the political language employed, and that there is a call to be principled and hold your convictions closely, if you’re to win the trust of the British electorate.

Jeremy Corbyn’s popularity has emerged not necessarily because the grassroots Labour membership suddenly clamour for socialist polities (no doubt some do), but because of a twenty-year frustration with a political party that appears to have lost its principles and convictions.

Blairism moderated the party to make it electable, faced with a right wing political agenda that had reshaped the country and political attitudes. But the Blair-Brown era of Labour only served to react to a form of Conservatism; it played the tune already composed by neo-liberalism. When neo-liberalism was found wanting in the 2007-8 recession, the country expected and indeed demanded an ideological change. But, after 2008, the business-as-usual manifestation of all political parties seemed to jar with a country that, at its heart, still believed in conviction politics and principles.

Labour's future

Photo credit: Labour Party, available under a Flickr Creative Commons Licence. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/legalcode)

The political language of post-1994 is devoid of any meaning. It is the language of not only moderation and compromise but also of neutrality. The Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats all employ this non-speak: a never ending stream of platitudes that only hint at issues without stating a firm vision of course of action. Promises to be economically credible, to tackle poverty, to address climate change, to deal with immigration, to oppose tuition fees, to save our health service all sound fine as headlines, but dig deeper and the specific policies are often absent. And the electorate have realised this, particularly younger generations of voters. After all, how many of these promises have turned out to be false promises or else have masked opposite agendas? The Liberal Democrats paid the ultimate price in this regard at the 2015 General Election when their platitudes about tuition fees and protection of state services became hollow.

Furthermore, since politicians from all the major parties employ the same style of political speak, they all tend to sound the same. Outpourings of grief and tributes paid to deceased politicians such as Michael Foot and Tony Benn demonstrated not a fondness for socialism, but rather sadness for the demise of a type of politician that is increasingly rare in the 21st century. Blairism turned the language of moderation and neutrality into a fine art; we believed it for a time but eventually even supportive Labour members saw through the charade. Politics became dull because politicians and political parties tried to cover all the messy contradictory issues we need to face through a series of bland platitudes: if political parties appear to stand for everything, they are nothing.

Corbyn’s popularity has emerged at a particular moment in time because the public are fed up with the blandness of political language. They are fed up with the lack of conviction and principles in political debates. And they are irritated by the fact that the three main Westminster political parties sound the same on issues; there is now no choice. This is also perhaps the reason why the Scottish Nationalists have surged ahead in Scotland; they sound different, they celebrate their ideology, they set out the issues they support and oppose, and they are not afraid of being portrayed by the media in an unpopular light for doing so.

Viewing Corbyn’s popularity as a threat to Labour’s electoral chances misses the point completely. It’s not about a threat to Labour per se, but rather to what Labour has become over the last 30 years; a party that is bland, vague, devoid of ideology, too close to the Tories. Turning that around is not easy: those 30 years have given rise to a complete generation of Blairites both within the House of Commons and in the party apparatus. Their reactions to Corbyn’s rise in the opinion polls demonstrates that they have no armoury to deal with the surge because they only have one style of thinking: moderation, compromise and neutrality at all costs to be electorally successful. But Corbyn’s agenda is proving to be more electorally successful and is rather based on ideology, conviction and principle. The three other leadership contenders respond to the Corbyn ‘threat’ with the usual platitudes and blandness. No wonder they are not making much impact.

Jeremy Corbyn

Photo credit: Chris Beckett, available under a Flickr Creative Commons Licence. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/legalcode)

Does this mean that a split in the Labour Party is likely if Corbyn wins? Tentatively, the answer has to be yes, since some of the other leadership candidates have already stated that they would refuse to serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet. Plus, post 1997, many in the Westminster Labour Party bubble are on the centre/right of the party. And on this issue, the right wing press cannot contain their delight with the prospect of a Labour Party tearing itself apart and putting pay to any prospect of it winning not just the 2020 General Election but possibly polls beyond that.

But let’s consider another scenario: what if Corbyn’s election as Labour leader galvanises political debate nationally, gives rise to conviction politics, and leads to a significant rise in the party’s standing in the opinion polls? What would those Labour members do who opposed Corbyn if his election makes Labour more credible as an alternative party of government than it currently is? Only time would reveal whether this would begin a honeymoon period for a new political leader or signal a more fundamental shift in British politics. It happened north of the border; could it happen in England and Wales? Not only would such a scenario rupture the present form of Labour Party thinking; it would begin to unravel the ‘sameness’ that has characterised party political thinking for the last 20 years. This may be healthy in any democracy but it would corrupt the compromising, middle ground, moderating agendas of post-Blairite Labour politics. It would not only rupture Labour; it would lead to a more significant series of divides emerging, between the north and south of the country, between cities and the countryside, and between those who support and oppose neo-liberalism.

That scenario may be too much to contemplate at the present time. But politicians from all parties are starting to realise that the Labour leadership election campaign could be about something much more than the future of Labour.

 Professor Mark Tewdwr-Jones

 

Labour’s future lies in co-operation and solidarity, not managerialism and party politics

Posted on by
Reply

David Webb is a Lecturer in Town Planning at Newcastle University. His research has explored the governing principles behind urban management, in particular New Labour’s ‘top down’ housing market renewal programme. More recently, his interests lie in co-operative influences on the heritage conservation movement and the cultural heritage of co-operation.

This May’s election news was crushing for the Labour Party and the left. And yet the political promise of the leadership contenders looks uninspiring. In choosing its next leader, to inspire a comeback, Labour faces a choice between a left wing stalwart ready to stick to their principles and debunk the myth that Britain’s economic fortunes were caused by state ‘profligacy’ or a return to the Blairite vision of a socially tempered devotion to market governance. But there is another way, perhaps the only route available to Labour if it wishes to exploit the opportunities created by a politically fractured and polarised UK: cooperation and solidarity.

Working together

The Guardian’s election round-up offered a shrewd analysis of the relationship between the SNP’s landslide and the appeal of Labour to swing voters in the south. The SNP’s rise may not, it seems, have just been exploited by the Conservatives and the Murdoch press. It could actually have been actively encouraged as part of a deliberate electoral strategy. This amounts to a divide and rule approach aimed at undermining the solidarity of those opposed to the Tory party alliance of landed interests and financiers. But political pluralism can be used to strengthen solidarity as well as break it. The roots of solidarity do not lie in us all thinking the same, but in strengthening core values through mutual working while allowing freedom and diversity to flourish.

Co-operative working could be the key to realising strength from political diversity. As Johnston Birchall argued in the 1980s, in his book ‘Building Sustainable Communities’ , co-operatives are a highly malleable form of organisation capable of appealing as much to individualism as to collectivism (Birchall, 1988). Phillip Blond, architect of the Conservatives’ ‘Big Society’, also understood this. He hoped to use co-operatives as a means of promoting Anglican Conservatism and ‘family values’ over corrosive privatisation (Blond, 2010). With retrospect, Blond’s agenda never seriously challenged the Tory party’s neoliberal core. But the Coalition did demonstrate the ability of co-operatives, in different guises, to appeal across the spectrum, with 75% of neighbourhood planning initiatives having taken place in Conservative controlled areas (Geoghegan, 2013).

Co-operative Socialism, on the other hand, gave birth to the Labour Party, with many more members of the First International supporting Proudhon and Bakunin’s mutualism than Marx’s problematic dictatorship of the proletariat. John Ruskin and William Morris both demonstrate the potential for co-operatives to have a romantic appeal to the affluent classes, these days obsessed with local food and organic produce. Co-operative working, then, is a word than can be mobilised in conservative or radical guises to respond to the political challenges being faced.

Right to left

A retreat to the left by Labour now will lose them the election in 2020: they simply cannot match the weight of tabloid papers and Conservative ministers insistent on pinning austerity on reckless spending policies. All Blair’s new public sector management tools offered was a double whammy of conformist, bureaucratic service delivery and preparations for future privatisation.

Labour needs a new concept that will allow it to start on the right and draw the electorate to the left. This is, in fact, what David Cameron has been doing with his discourse on austerity. During the 2010 election he was much more circumspect about the causes of the economic crash. This time, backed up by a raft of neoliberal converts in the Lib Dems, he went all guns blazing to pin austerity on profligate state spending. Ed Miliband, meanwhile, offered an inconsistent message that veered between apologising for his party’s economic record and offering price control policies in areas like energy that came across as more of the same.

There have been occasional Conservative attempts to challenge market concentration which the Labour party might learn from. Their plans to increase house building will not work because of market concentration in land ownership and the development industry. But rather than confront these industries with regulation, gentle efforts have been made to encourage new market entrants, focusing on areas such as custom build where new building technologies and approaches already have the potential to challenge the big players. Labour could do the same, continuing the Coalition’s encouragement of co-operative local service delivery and exploring a range of ways to promote co-operative energy producers, house builders and utilities providers using innovative organisational forms rather than giant nationalised companies.

Co-operatives can be deployed as a means of market regulation, as a replacement for some rail services for example, thus helping to highlight the inherent failures of heavily regulated, privately delivered services. They have the potential to reduce the huge expenses currently directed at regulating bodies, contractual arrangements and business failures not to mention profit margins. But they also have the potential to maintain a basically neoliberal form of market delivery: something that will be essential in Labour’s early fight back against the Tories. In the longer term, examples like the anarcho-communist village of Marinelada in Spain show that radical forms of organisation can provide realistic and sustainable solutions (Hancox, 2013).

Rebuild

Co-operation has one last virtue that may prove crucial in 2020, which is that an alliance around co-operative principles may be stronger than a party system where Labour expends valuable resources fighting against the Greens and the SNP. If the south wants light touch regulation, give it to them by using co-operative thinking to inspire ethically conscious consumerism and regulation through local accountability. If Scotland wants progressive Socialism, then encourage a form of co-operative ownership of large public services and infrastructure akin to the Netherlands’ housing association sector. Solidarity from diversity. Yes, this is a vision that has neoliberal tinges, and that is why it offers the best base from which to rebuild.

 

References

Birchall, J. (1988) Building communities : the co-operative way Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.

Blond, P. (2010) Red Tory : how the left and right have broken Britain and how we can fix it Faber and Faber: London.

Geoghegan, J. (2013) Poorer areas see few neighbourhood plan applications. Downloaded 21st July 2015 from: http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1175787/poorer-areas-few-neighbourhood-plan-applications

Hancox, D. (2013) Spain’s communist model village.Downloaded 21st July 2015 from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/marinaleda-spanish-communist-village-utopia