The Wardman Wire has kicked off a fascinating series of posts about the approach of the National Secular Society (NSS) towards faith communities.
In his post beginning the series, Matt Wardman criticises the NSS for presenting itself in the media as “representing” the “non-religious” when it is an organisation with a tiny membership that then constantly criticises religions with committed memberships of millions for being insignificant minorities. He outlines their approaches of: achieving influence via a network of “Honorary Associates” in the media and politics; having individual members act as local activists; and using campaigning tactics where the “office” backs up campaigns by local members by leveraging targeted media coverage, and sometimes legal threats.
He ends by arguing that the case for a secular state could be put far more strongly if the NSS was sidelined, as there’d be far fewer insults thrown around, and far more use of accurate information in the debate.
To demonstrate that he is open to genuine debate on these issues, the second post in the series is a response from Carl Gardner, an NSS supporter. Gardner argues that the secular viewpoint is much needed in our public debate about competing rights and religion – more needed now than ever when new, assertively countercultural forms of religion are becoming increasingly strident and that, while the NSS may not get everything right, it’s a vital organisation doing a good job of fighting for important principles.
This series should run and run and looks as though it will be well worth checking out. My recent sermon, which I posted as http://joninbetween.blogspot.com/2010/01/post-christendom-church.html, touched on some of these issues.
Expanding on that post, many Christians seem to feel that, as the first comment to a post by Adam Higgitt on the pressures being brought to bear on Christianity says, "Religion (especially Christianity) is extremely marginalised in British public life." My argument, though, is that that is too simplistic a response to the current position of Christianity in the UK. First, we are in a Post-Christendom period where the privileged position that Christianity once had in the UK is gradually being eroded. For Christianity to have had a privileged position in UK society was not an unmitigated blessing and the change in its position has pros as well as cons (and arguably brings us closer to the position of the Early Church in relation to political powers). However, our awareness of this erosion process as a series of losses gives the impression that Christianity is being treated unfairly.
Second, there has been and still is a secularist agenda that seeks to marginalise religion (and Christianity, in particular). It is this agenda on which Higgitt focuses in his post. Secularism combined with Post-Christendom was a potent mix initially seemed to threaten the survival of Christianity as a factor in the public square in the UK. In much of the 70s and 80s this secularist agenda essentially excluded faith-based organisations from involvement in the delivery of public services but that situation has changed radically as a result of ...
Third, the multi-faith nature of the UK and its inclusion in the diversity agenda which has been a counter-balance to this secularist agenda. Equalities and human rights legislation is resulting from the diversity rather than the secularist agenda so that, instead of religions (including Christianity) being excluded from the public square, we are in a place where discriminating against people on the basis of religion or belief is illegal. One result has been the increasing reversal of the exclusion of faith-based organisations from involvement in delivery of public services (as example, see Lifeline Projects and the FaithAction network within which they are one of the key partners).
So, I was arguing in my sermon that our current context is an appropriate reduction in the privileged position Christianity has occupied in the UK in the past combined with a secularist argument that seeks to remove religion (and Christianity, in particular) from the public square but that the secularising agenda has been halted and the position of religions (including the Christianity) regularised and equalised by the diversity agenda.
Christians though regularly conflate the secularist and diversity agendas arguing that multi-faith UK threatens Christianity when the major threat actually comes from the secularist agenda. Many in other faith communities actively support the Church having a voice and role in the public square and would prefer Christians to be more outspoken in our comment on public affairs (albeit, generally from a conservative perspective); essentially they would prefer to be live in Christendom rather than in Post-Christendom. To conflate the two is to 'bite the hand that feeds you'; multi-faith UK has essentially strengthened the position of Christianity vis a vis the secularist agenda and is a stablising factor reducing the advance of secularism. As a result, the diversity agenda needs to be supported and utilised intelligently by the Church.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extreme - There Is No God.
Showing posts with label lifeline. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lifeline. Show all posts
Thursday, 21 January 2010
Monday, 18 January 2010
Family Health event
FaithAction, a strategic partner of the Department of Health, is hosting an event around Family Health on 9th February 2010. This event will showcase a number of members and their work in communities on the ground, as well as show their ability to work with those termed ‘Hard to reach’ and change the health of families in their communities.
Health and wellbeing affects every aspect of our lives and therefore faith based organisations have a key role in tackling such issues in their work in the community.
This event is for any organisation working with families in the community.
Guest speakers include: Philippa Stroud from the Centre for Social Justice; Avril McIntyre from LifeLine Community Projects; and representatives from the Department of Health Strategic Partners. Date: 9th February 2010. Time: 9:30am till 3pm. Lunch included. Free places are limited, so book asap. Venue: Royal Institute of British Architects, 66 Portland Place , London , W1B 1AD
The day will cover:
• Essential information on potential future government strategy for the Third Sector;
• The Role and growing important of the third sector in a recession;
• Briefing from Philippa Stroud, the Director of the Centre for Social Justice and a leading light on Conservative thinking; and
• Key insights from Department of Health and Strategic Partners.
This event will be interactive and will be an opportunity to both access information and also contribute to central policy agenda. This event is aimed at Chief Executives, Trustees, Senior Fundraisers and Third Sector Managers. To book your place or for further information, contact Felicity Holland on 0845 094 6350 or events@faithaction.net.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Dury - Reasons To Be Cheerful Part 3.
Health and wellbeing affects every aspect of our lives and therefore faith based organisations have a key role in tackling such issues in their work in the community.
This event is for any organisation working with families in the community.
Guest speakers include: Philippa Stroud from the Centre for Social Justice; Avril McIntyre from LifeLine Community Projects; and representatives from the Department of Health Strategic Partners. Date: 9th February 2010. Time: 9:30am till 3pm. Lunch included. Free places are limited, so book asap. Venue: Royal Institute of British Architects, 66 Portland Place , London , W1B 1AD
The day will cover:
• Essential information on potential future government strategy for the Third Sector;
• The Role and growing important of the third sector in a recession;
• Briefing from Philippa Stroud, the Director of the Centre for Social Justice and a leading light on Conservative thinking; and
• Key insights from Department of Health and Strategic Partners.
This event will be interactive and will be an opportunity to both access information and also contribute to central policy agenda. This event is aimed at Chief Executives, Trustees, Senior Fundraisers and Third Sector Managers. To book your place or for further information, contact Felicity Holland on 0845 094 6350 or events@faithaction.net.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Dury - Reasons To Be Cheerful Part 3.
Friday, 11 July 2008
FaithAction's TaskForce
Last week saw the first meeting of FaithAction’s TaskForce, a group drawn together from policy makers and practitioners around Public Service delivery to discuss policy issues, presenting solutions to Government.
Daniel Singleton, the National Executive Director of FaithAction, reports on the success of the TaskForce: “This TaskForce will help FaithAction channel, magnify and increase the voice of faith based and faith inspired organisations. It also gives us the opportunity to look at good practice examples in the areas that we represent. It will provide an opportunity to discuss and identify opportunities and provide future direction as FaithAction develops.”
“The TaskForce included representatives from LifeLine, Faith works, Faith Regen, The Metropolitan police, the Charity Commission and the Peace Alliance as well as the Communities for Local Government department. The TaskForce discussed how, as Third Sector organisations, we can use our unique position in the public sector delivery to prevent extremism and promote social cohesion.”
The TaskForce is preparing a report to government on behalf of FaithAction members. For more information please contact Felicity Holland, National Co-ordinator of FaithAction on 0845 094 6350.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Chapman - New Beginning.
Daniel Singleton, the National Executive Director of FaithAction, reports on the success of the TaskForce: “This TaskForce will help FaithAction channel, magnify and increase the voice of faith based and faith inspired organisations. It also gives us the opportunity to look at good practice examples in the areas that we represent. It will provide an opportunity to discuss and identify opportunities and provide future direction as FaithAction develops.”
“The TaskForce included representatives from LifeLine, Faith works, Faith Regen, The Metropolitan police, the Charity Commission and the Peace Alliance as well as the Communities for Local Government department. The TaskForce discussed how, as Third Sector organisations, we can use our unique position in the public sector delivery to prevent extremism and promote social cohesion.”
The TaskForce is preparing a report to government on behalf of FaithAction members. For more information please contact Felicity Holland, National Co-ordinator of FaithAction on 0845 094 6350.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Chapman - New Beginning.
Monday, 18 February 2008
FaithAction - Money Well Spent!
FaithAction have opened new direct phone lines and email addresses for each of their regional offices:
Iona - Strength.
- National Office - info@faithaction.net , 0845 094 6350, fax 0845 094 6351;
- London - london@faithaction.net , 0845 094 6341;
- West Midlands - westmidlands@faithaction.net , 0845 094 6342;
- East Midlands - eastmidlands@faithaction.net , 0845 094 6343;
- South West - southwest@faithaction.net , 0845 094 6344;
- North West - northwest@faithaction.net , 0845 094 6345;
- South East - southeast@faithaction.net , 0845 094 6346;
- Yorkshire & The Humber - yorkshirehumber@faithaction.net , 0845 094 6347;
- East of England - eastengland@faithaction.net , 0845 094 6348;
- North East - northeast@faithaction.net , 0845 094 6349.
FaithAction are also putting together the final touches for their conference and are very pleased to announce the following seminars showcasing best practice in the sector:
- Faith, Women and Business - hosted by Robina Dina from Faith Regen Foundation & Gweneth Balson of Digital Life, Bradford, who manage the FaithAction Office for the Yorkshire and the Humber region. Topics of discussion in this seminar will include; capacity building, funding, confidence building, how to become self employed inc. social enterprise, how to embed equality and diversity.
- Faith groups impact in local communities - hosted by Zoe Sanderson of Faithworks, this seminar looks at how a faith-based organisation can remain true to their principles and original mission when working with statutory bodies to deliver public services.
- Going for Growth - hosted by Lisa Webb, Deputy CEO Lifeline. This session will also feature case studies of other faith-based organisations including Aquila Way, London Muslim Centre & East London Mosque.
The conference is now only 8 days away! If you have not yet booked your place, click here to go to the Money Well Spent conference web page.
------------------------------------------------------------------------Iona - Strength.
Wednesday, 5 December 2007
'Quality & Equality' seeks to exclude faiths
An important debate is currently underway in the public arena about the extent to which religious organisations should be involved in the delivery of public services.
The British Humanist Association (BHA) has published a study called Quality and Equality on the contracting out of public services to religious organisations. It is being supported by the Trades Union Congress and its conclusions have been endorsed by public figures including Lord Warner, former minister at the Department of Health.
The report’s findings demonstrate, says its authors, that there is no evidence that religious organisations offer any distinctive benefits to the supply and provision of public services. Indeed they suggest that the government’s policy objective of expanding the role of religious organisations within the public services runs the risk of lowering standards, increasing inequalities, introducing ‘parallel services’ and damaging social cohesion.
Simon Barrow, co-director of the religious think tank Ekklesia, has rightly commented that religious organisations "share with the authors of this report a concern for comprehensive equalities and quality in public service provision" and that there are "real problems and questions in the public service arena which need addressing urgently." As a result, the report deserves to be read with an open mind as a "part of an important and growing debate."
However, it should be recognised that Quality and Equality does not approach the involvement of religious organisations in the delivery of Government services with an open mind. Malcolm Duncan, Leader of Faithworks, has rightly pointed out that in this report the BHA has "fallen into accusatory and exclusive language" and "attempts to consign faith to the edge of society, attacking and misrepresenting who we are and our motivation for what we do."
Duncan points out that there are thousands of projects and groups in the faith sector that already do what the BHA are recommending in their report but that, instead of acknowledging this fact, the language of the report "caricatures the faith sector, assuming the worst of us rather than acknowledging the best."
FaithAction, of which Faithworks is a partner together with Faith Regen Foundation and Lifeline, will be showcasing some of the excellent services that faith groups provide to the whole of society at their forthcoming conference, Money Well Spent, and through their new website (to go live over the next few weeks). These initiatives show that faith-based organisations tender for public money to deliver services that are needed in society with inclusivity and that this public money is not used to further religious objectives.
"The way ahead," Duncan says, "is not to dismiss faith, but to embrace it whilst at the same time celebrating the rights and responsibilities of humanists and secularists."
The difference between Duncan's comments and those of the BHA is that Duncan is calling for a level playing field in the commissioning of public services and in the vital link between public benefit and the use of public funds while the BHA are calling for secular services, which by virtue of being 'secular' (i.e. non-religious) would exclude religious organisations from involvement in delivery.
Hanne Stinson, BHA Chief Executive, has explicitly stated that the BHA have published Quality and Equality to make clear their position "that the most fair and most inclusive services – for service users of all faiths and none – are secular services." As the BHA state on their website they are an organisation which devotes much of its time to campaigning and lobbying on behalf of everyone who considers themselves to be a humanist or holds similar views. As a result, its reports and pronouncements cannot be received as unbiased or objective.
This reality is made clear by the statement, again on their website, that humanists make "decisions on the evidence rather than on the basis of religious doctrines." Again, this is a biased perception of their position which ignores the extent to which all human knowledge is based on faith (as has been demonstrated by Michael Polyani) and that humanism (like all religions) is a worldview based on unprovable assumptions that are held by its adherents as a matter of belief not fact. Humanism needs to be understood, not as a separate evidence-based secular position able to judge subjective religions, but as part of the 'faiths' sector because it is itself a set of beliefs. Interestingly and accurately, this is how humanism seems to be understood within religious discrimination legislation and is something that humanists have tacitly acknowledged when they have sought to join local SACREs and Faith Forums.
As Faithworks have argued: "The BHA are calling for faith to be removed from public services in a roundabout way – that’s not just wrong, it is misguided, dangerous and will doom communities to poorer services. Faith groups have a valuable contribution to make and that contribution is not only at the heart of social and welfare provision, it is at the heart of a healthy and balanced society."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pink Floyd - Bike.
The British Humanist Association (BHA) has published a study called Quality and Equality on the contracting out of public services to religious organisations. It is being supported by the Trades Union Congress and its conclusions have been endorsed by public figures including Lord Warner, former minister at the Department of Health.
The report’s findings demonstrate, says its authors, that there is no evidence that religious organisations offer any distinctive benefits to the supply and provision of public services. Indeed they suggest that the government’s policy objective of expanding the role of religious organisations within the public services runs the risk of lowering standards, increasing inequalities, introducing ‘parallel services’ and damaging social cohesion.
Simon Barrow, co-director of the religious think tank Ekklesia, has rightly commented that religious organisations "share with the authors of this report a concern for comprehensive equalities and quality in public service provision" and that there are "real problems and questions in the public service arena which need addressing urgently." As a result, the report deserves to be read with an open mind as a "part of an important and growing debate."
However, it should be recognised that Quality and Equality does not approach the involvement of religious organisations in the delivery of Government services with an open mind. Malcolm Duncan, Leader of Faithworks, has rightly pointed out that in this report the BHA has "fallen into accusatory and exclusive language" and "attempts to consign faith to the edge of society, attacking and misrepresenting who we are and our motivation for what we do."
Duncan points out that there are thousands of projects and groups in the faith sector that already do what the BHA are recommending in their report but that, instead of acknowledging this fact, the language of the report "caricatures the faith sector, assuming the worst of us rather than acknowledging the best."
FaithAction, of which Faithworks is a partner together with Faith Regen Foundation and Lifeline, will be showcasing some of the excellent services that faith groups provide to the whole of society at their forthcoming conference, Money Well Spent, and through their new website (to go live over the next few weeks). These initiatives show that faith-based organisations tender for public money to deliver services that are needed in society with inclusivity and that this public money is not used to further religious objectives.
"The way ahead," Duncan says, "is not to dismiss faith, but to embrace it whilst at the same time celebrating the rights and responsibilities of humanists and secularists."
The difference between Duncan's comments and those of the BHA is that Duncan is calling for a level playing field in the commissioning of public services and in the vital link between public benefit and the use of public funds while the BHA are calling for secular services, which by virtue of being 'secular' (i.e. non-religious) would exclude religious organisations from involvement in delivery.
Hanne Stinson, BHA Chief Executive, has explicitly stated that the BHA have published Quality and Equality to make clear their position "that the most fair and most inclusive services – for service users of all faiths and none – are secular services." As the BHA state on their website they are an organisation which devotes much of its time to campaigning and lobbying on behalf of everyone who considers themselves to be a humanist or holds similar views. As a result, its reports and pronouncements cannot be received as unbiased or objective.
This reality is made clear by the statement, again on their website, that humanists make "decisions on the evidence rather than on the basis of religious doctrines." Again, this is a biased perception of their position which ignores the extent to which all human knowledge is based on faith (as has been demonstrated by Michael Polyani) and that humanism (like all religions) is a worldview based on unprovable assumptions that are held by its adherents as a matter of belief not fact. Humanism needs to be understood, not as a separate evidence-based secular position able to judge subjective religions, but as part of the 'faiths' sector because it is itself a set of beliefs. Interestingly and accurately, this is how humanism seems to be understood within religious discrimination legislation and is something that humanists have tacitly acknowledged when they have sought to join local SACREs and Faith Forums.
As Faithworks have argued: "The BHA are calling for faith to be removed from public services in a roundabout way – that’s not just wrong, it is misguided, dangerous and will doom communities to poorer services. Faith groups have a valuable contribution to make and that contribution is not only at the heart of social and welfare provision, it is at the heart of a healthy and balanced society."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pink Floyd - Bike.
Sunday, 2 December 2007
Listen to Seven Kings residents
In advance of the Redbridge Council Cabinet meeting on Monday 3rd December which is scheduled to include discussion of the Seven Kings Lorry park sale and in support of those who will gather to speak in the public part of that meeting, I ask the Cabinet to give serious consideration to the following:
1. In the course of the year that I have now been Vicar at St John's Seven Kings, many local people have expressed a desire to see a community focus return to Seven Kings and the High Road in particular. The Lifeline bid, through its mix of new health, leisure and retail services, would provide that community focus and is supported by 86% of Seven Kings residents. This bears out the anecdotal impression I have gained in my first year of ministry here. The Lifeline bid therefore has strong local support and significant benefits for the community.
2. The planning brief for the lorry park made much of the importance of community development gain for any activity on site but the Lifeline bid, through its mix of new health, leisure and retail services which support the new housing that is also included, seems to be the only one which seriously addresses this aspect of the planning brief. Cabinet should consider lessons from regeneration schemes elsewhere in the country which demonstrate that holistic, integrated solutions are needed in order to build community. In other words, simply building new homes without development of the local and community infrastructure fails to create community. The Lifeline bid should be supported because it meets this aspect of the planning brief which will also vital in the long-term success of any initiative involving housing on the site.
3. Lifeline have offered a strong cash bid in addition to the obvious community gains outlined above. Their £13.2m package (initial cash offering of £4m, buildings to be given to the Council adding another £3.7m and additional community facilities costed at £5.5m) would bring a mixed use development to the area. including creating full and part time jobs. In terms of both net economic benefit and added value, the Lifeline bid must therefore exceed any housing-only bids; including that of Swan Housing, which appears to offer only an additional six housing units to those in the Lifeline bid while only netting the Council £7.7m.
I have worked previously with Lifeline on inter-faith and training initiatives in Barking and Dagenham and can commend their effectiveness in delivery and in community engagement. I, therefore, have no hesitation in commending their bid to the Cabinet for the reasons outlined above.
On Friday, at the Community Cohesion conference held at the Town Hall, the Leader of the Council stated that community cohesion is good in Redbridge because the different groups in the borough listen to each other. However, in Seven Kings local people do not feel that they are being heard; little of the Seven Kings Action Plan has yet been implemented, residents have consistently have a long-running preference for a new library to replace the old 'sold off' library at the other end of the High Road; and 86% of residents consulted expressed a preference for the community facilities included in the Lifeline bid. Because decisions on the bids for the Lorry Park sale have been referred back to Cabinet, you now have an opportunity to make the Leader's words reality and show that Redbridge really is a listening local authority by listening to and acting on the preference expressed by Seven Kings residents for community facilities to feature strongly in a multi-use package on the Lorry Park site.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Marley & The Wailers - Concrete Jungle.
1. In the course of the year that I have now been Vicar at St John's Seven Kings, many local people have expressed a desire to see a community focus return to Seven Kings and the High Road in particular. The Lifeline bid, through its mix of new health, leisure and retail services, would provide that community focus and is supported by 86% of Seven Kings residents. This bears out the anecdotal impression I have gained in my first year of ministry here. The Lifeline bid therefore has strong local support and significant benefits for the community.
2. The planning brief for the lorry park made much of the importance of community development gain for any activity on site but the Lifeline bid, through its mix of new health, leisure and retail services which support the new housing that is also included, seems to be the only one which seriously addresses this aspect of the planning brief. Cabinet should consider lessons from regeneration schemes elsewhere in the country which demonstrate that holistic, integrated solutions are needed in order to build community. In other words, simply building new homes without development of the local and community infrastructure fails to create community. The Lifeline bid should be supported because it meets this aspect of the planning brief which will also vital in the long-term success of any initiative involving housing on the site.
3. Lifeline have offered a strong cash bid in addition to the obvious community gains outlined above. Their £13.2m package (initial cash offering of £4m, buildings to be given to the Council adding another £3.7m and additional community facilities costed at £5.5m) would bring a mixed use development to the area. including creating full and part time jobs. In terms of both net economic benefit and added value, the Lifeline bid must therefore exceed any housing-only bids; including that of Swan Housing, which appears to offer only an additional six housing units to those in the Lifeline bid while only netting the Council £7.7m.
I have worked previously with Lifeline on inter-faith and training initiatives in Barking and Dagenham and can commend their effectiveness in delivery and in community engagement. I, therefore, have no hesitation in commending their bid to the Cabinet for the reasons outlined above.
On Friday, at the Community Cohesion conference held at the Town Hall, the Leader of the Council stated that community cohesion is good in Redbridge because the different groups in the borough listen to each other. However, in Seven Kings local people do not feel that they are being heard; little of the Seven Kings Action Plan has yet been implemented, residents have consistently have a long-running preference for a new library to replace the old 'sold off' library at the other end of the High Road; and 86% of residents consulted expressed a preference for the community facilities included in the Lifeline bid. Because decisions on the bids for the Lorry Park sale have been referred back to Cabinet, you now have an opportunity to make the Leader's words reality and show that Redbridge really is a listening local authority by listening to and acting on the preference expressed by Seven Kings residents for community facilities to feature strongly in a multi-use package on the Lorry Park site.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Marley & The Wailers - Concrete Jungle.
Thursday, 25 October 2007
Redbridge Council - out of touch with local people
An edited version of the letter I have written below appears in today's Ilford Recorder:
"Recent decisions made by Redbridge Council over the sales of allotments and the Seven Kings car park sale reveal a Council that is out-of-touch with local people and lacking a joined-up vision for the borough.
Unlike other London borough’s our Council’s priorities make no reference at all to involving local people in the borough and the way it is run. Instead, when it comes to making the borough a ‘better place to life together’ their priorities are simply about “developing housing needs” and “improving sporting facilities.” It is a desperately limited vision for the borough that ignores the wider community and cultural engagement and involvement that many other London boroughs value and promote. It should come as no surprise then that this Council has ignored the views of 86% of Seven Kings residents and rejected Lifeline’s car park bid which would have provided much needed community facilities, in addition to homes.
Another Council priority is to make the borough a ‘cleaner, greener place to live’ but again in a limited fashion; only by “improving the street scene and recycling.” Setting themselves such limited goals presumably means that it is okay for them to destroy green spaces by selling allotments and still claim to be making the borough cleaner and greener. Again, that decision has been made in the face of public opinion.
This Council’s past planning decisions have certainly not made Seven Kings High Road a cleaner, greener place to live and simply building 130 new homes without any community facilities to give people living in the area a sense of pride in their locality will not make the area any cleaner, greener or any more safe.
Other London boroughs are working with a broad holistic vision that seeks to engage and involve local people and which joins up priorities to deliver a community infrastructure that supports additional housing; but not Redbridge Council. The national Conservative Party has rediscovered the word ‘community’ and has embraced green issues; but Redbridge Conservative councillors clearly have not. Local people have made it clear that they want community facilities and allotments; but Redbridge’s Cabinet do not.
Does the fact that they are so far out of step nationally, regionally and locally not give them cause for concern or are they proud of their obdurancy? I am told that the reasons for the Seven Kings car park decision are not in the public domain. What is this Cabinet afraid of? Democracy? The opportunity is still there for them to listen to local people on these decisions but do they have the courage or the concern?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The La's - Feeling.
"Recent decisions made by Redbridge Council over the sales of allotments and the Seven Kings car park sale reveal a Council that is out-of-touch with local people and lacking a joined-up vision for the borough.
Unlike other London borough’s our Council’s priorities make no reference at all to involving local people in the borough and the way it is run. Instead, when it comes to making the borough a ‘better place to life together’ their priorities are simply about “developing housing needs” and “improving sporting facilities.” It is a desperately limited vision for the borough that ignores the wider community and cultural engagement and involvement that many other London boroughs value and promote. It should come as no surprise then that this Council has ignored the views of 86% of Seven Kings residents and rejected Lifeline’s car park bid which would have provided much needed community facilities, in addition to homes.
Another Council priority is to make the borough a ‘cleaner, greener place to live’ but again in a limited fashion; only by “improving the street scene and recycling.” Setting themselves such limited goals presumably means that it is okay for them to destroy green spaces by selling allotments and still claim to be making the borough cleaner and greener. Again, that decision has been made in the face of public opinion.
This Council’s past planning decisions have certainly not made Seven Kings High Road a cleaner, greener place to live and simply building 130 new homes without any community facilities to give people living in the area a sense of pride in their locality will not make the area any cleaner, greener or any more safe.
Other London boroughs are working with a broad holistic vision that seeks to engage and involve local people and which joins up priorities to deliver a community infrastructure that supports additional housing; but not Redbridge Council. The national Conservative Party has rediscovered the word ‘community’ and has embraced green issues; but Redbridge Conservative councillors clearly have not. Local people have made it clear that they want community facilities and allotments; but Redbridge’s Cabinet do not.
Does the fact that they are so far out of step nationally, regionally and locally not give them cause for concern or are they proud of their obdurancy? I am told that the reasons for the Seven Kings car park decision are not in the public domain. What is this Cabinet afraid of? Democracy? The opportunity is still there for them to listen to local people on these decisions but do they have the courage or the concern?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The La's - Feeling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)