….as Blears may have been forced to contribute to this thread!

Now, wouldn’t that have been fun?

Thanks for your reply.

I understand what you are saying. And perhaps you are right. Although the White Paper does in fact address the concept of adopting the Scottish Parliaments’ Petitions Committee at Westminster level. My issue with that is pretty simple. The Scottish Parliaments’ Petitions Committee seems to me to take up a strictly limited range of topics to pursue. I am not at all clear what their criteria actually is, and I would be grateful if anyone could determine it for me. My own research has drawn a blank. So I am in the uncomfortable position of arguing that the absence of terms of reference – which there ought to be – suggests they just make it up as they go along. Which is highly unlikely, but they are certainly not advertising their criteria.

I am, in general, in favour of transparency in terms of a petitions process. So, for instance, whatever else we may think of it, at least the Prime Ministers’ Petition Process is quite clear when it comes to acceptance or rejection of a petition. The outcomes are, obviously, another matter entirely.

I think this is a perverse opinion for a minister to make.

There is a clear line between engagement and protest or between concilliation and confrontation, which this minister completely fails to appreciate or communicate.

There are ways of handling consultations which produce good results for all concerned, but this CiC paper is a prime example of how not to do it. What exactly has Blears (as representative figurehead) done to broaden the audience for constructive debate?

Clearly the ministerial protocols are not fully in place or not being followed in this instance, so perhaps it is necessary to pass new legislation to get government officers to do their jobs better – it would certainly have been interesting if the proposed requirement to demonstrate adequate response to consultation processes had been in place for this white paper, as Blears may have been forced to contribute to this thread!

I don’t disagree with most of that. Certainly with regards to the way the government responds so poorly to public concerns you are totally right. And the Iraqi interpreters is a good example – it was an absolutely slam dunk case.

That’s the thing – reading the white paper and seeing the stated intentions, such as making local politicians more responsive and accountable to those they represent and, picking up Lee’s point, giving people better access to information, I kept thinking “if the Government thinks these things are so important at local level, why is it so crap at them at national level and what is it doing to put its own house in order?”.

I don’t think that the white paper is a deliberate attempt to neuter protest – rather they are perfectly happy for people to protest as long as it is local politicians on the receiving end. That does not neccessarily make the proposals in the white paper wrong but I want to know when they are going to extend the principles which underlie to the national level and make our national politics as transparent, responsive and accountable as they say they want to make local politics.

I don’t think I quite agree with what you have to say at 13, but please, bear with me. The White Paper seems to me to be an attempt to neuter protest by giving it channels that lead nowhere. It is, for instance, quite keen to establish a Parliamentary petitions committee, with the alleged objective of giving a ‘champion’ within government for the issues raised. With no explanation of how or why specific ideas will be supported or denied.

It is on that basis, the somewhat spurious idea that any level of elected government will concede ground to popular sentiment, that the White Paper is a fail.

It frankly does not address the issue of concern, the lack of genuine consultation. Governments do just enough to see off protest, unless the groundswell is very well orchestrated.

I think, correct me if I am wrong, that the case pro the Iraq interpreters was a slam dunk. But we did not get anything like a meaningful response from HMG. We got a minimalist, frankly insulting, response. And that was on a pretty fundamental human rights issue.

Where protest might succeed, the Gurkha Rights campaign for instance, is in taking the government on at a number of levels, through bad publicity, through the courts and through, sad as it is to admit it, celebrity status. Joanna Lumley has worked tirelessly for this particular cause, and honestly, she will probably make the difference between success and failure. Good on her, but it should not require a star to convince.

I am not happy about that. But it seems to be the way of the world.

One of the things that particularly strikes me about the White Paper in general is that it seems to want to hold local government to much higher standards than are currently being met by central government.

Yes Mike you are correct. LAs do employ too many consultants because they lack adequate technical skills. Employing far more tradesmen in LAs at the expenses of white collar administrators would help to repair the large number of council houses and public spaces in poor conditions. It would provide employment for those who do not have 5 GSCEs and hopefully and help to reduce the number of young people who are NEETS. When county and district councils undertook engineering design they employed and trained large numbers of tradesmen, technicians and engineers who had great skills and dedication to the areas in which they lived and work. Just look at many of the job adverts for jobs in LAs. LAs have become a meal and mortgage ticket for life for many white collar humanities types who will do very little to actually empower people. Many blue collar traditional Labour voters realise that many middle class councillors and council officers are only interested in feathering their bed and that is why they are so apathetic. An apathetic electorate is just what many councillors and council officers want.

Transparency, accountability and empowerment – yeah, right.

The most famous “efficiency drive” in recent times has been that conducted by the Tories upon taking over Hammersmith & Fulham council in west London. I think they’ve achieved something in the order of 10-15% staff savings in the thirty months they’ve been in charge – quite possibly less.

Genuine efficiency savings can be estimated by comparing payrolls with turnover, and looking at the best and worst cases. I doubt that overall, more than 10% of the staff could be removed on this basis, so I challenge you to identify the 30% or so of what local authority white-collar staff do now that you are prepared to see left undone.

You might also care to make a case for your artisan-fetishism: the idea that real jobs imply real sweat strikes me as mere romaticism – perhaps you think a stonemason is a more fulfilling occupation than an architect, but if so I’d like to know why.

An empowered , responsible ,skilled, honest and hardworking populace with vast amounts of initiative would remove the need of vaster numbers of police, lawyers, prison officers , administrators in the NHS and the welfare society. Taxes could be reduced or spent on more edifying activities.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

(Sorry, that’s a private joke between me and anyone else who’s actually seen a copy of “NHS Choices” magazine, or even its busted Website.)

I know that’s not very constructive, but then neither is NHS Choices. And, ooh, surprise, surprise, look what a quick Google turns up:

This week the Department of Health announced Capita as the preferred bidder for the NHS Choices contract for the next three years

Poorly manintained homes in the damp and cold climate of the UK can led to illness- remember the disease of the slums of the 19C and early 20C, especially TB . Poorly maintained public space – graffiti , fly tipping, overflowing bins, drug debris , abondoned cars leads to the assumption that those living in such areas having been abondoned by the State. Basically there should be an audit of all government employees. Sack 40% of all administrators/ white collar staff employ more competent teachers, competent social workers, craftsmen to repair council homes, street sweepers, park staff. There needs to be change of power ; power needs to be taken from the white collar administrator and given to the blue collar /technically skilled.

If people experienced well maintained council homes and an attractive and clean pulic space within poor inner city areas , then people woiuld have a much higher regard for Government.

The “digital mentor” thing sounds like the worst sort of government “hey kids, get hip to the internet!” scheme. How is having a community website for your council estate (with lots of pictures, of course) going to allow you to find out about council services, unless the council is running it? And if the council is running it, how is it going to be any different from the opaque jargon-laden monstrosities we currently see?

A few years ago I was watching the New Deal for Communities forums with some interest, because I knew people in one of the communities in question and there were major shenanigans going on. The official forums blotted out any mention of the goings-on, and the unofficial forums were doing just fine without any interference from government.

The real concern with pushing information online is not government white papers, it’s the information which the functionally illiterate need, and currently get from visiting the health centre or the citizens’ advice or the council’s area office, and talking to someone. Sticking things on a website, however well-designed and stuffed with photos of the community radio station, isn’t going to provide those people with the information they need in a form they can access.

Do these people really care? 20% of the UK population is functionally illiterate, and the world has passed them by without them knowing or caring much about it.

(Of course, there are people without internet access because they can;’t afford it rather than they don’t want it — these people are a separate category).