Who do Neighbourhood Partnerships actually represent?
By Gambit72 | Monday, February 15, 2010, 10:47
I used to think that devolving power to Neighbourhood Partnerships sounded like a good idea because, apparently, with these Neighbourhood Partnerships, we’ll have more input on the issues that matter to us.
Or will we? How will it work in practice?
For a start, who’s deemed to be part of a community, for the purposes of a Neighbourhood Partnership? Do you have to live there? Could you just work there? Can businesses based locally, become members? And who decides?
I ask because the Greater Bedminster Community Partnership is currently debating whether Bristol City should be allowed to join their Neighbourhood Partnership. Some of the existing members don’t think it should. One described the very idea as nonsensical. Others say the club isn’t really part of the community and doesn’t do anything for it!
Then there’s the sticky question of how well your views, beliefs and – incredibly – even personal habits sit with the partnership. They worry that, at some point, they might have to consider whether there are some organisations which, despite being legal, shouldn’t be allowed to join a neighbourhood partnership. Some of the examples they give are shocking:
1) “Certain religious groups (afterall some are clearly homophobic and don’t treat their women fairly)”
So presumably, Bedminster Churches wouldn’t be welcome then? After all, if some of their members follow their particular holy book to the letter, then they might consider homosexuality to be wrong and that women should submit to their husbands in everything. Never mind the work various religious groups do in our local community or how much valuable knowledge they might have about community issues, their input wouldn’t be allowed because some of their beliefs are unpalatable?
2) “Would we accept an anti-smoking community group but reject a pro-smoking group?”
What on earth has smoking got to do with a neighbourhood partnership! What are these people afraid of?
If these partnerships are going to be basically a little enclave of people – the ‘usual suspects’: self-important, self-righteous, and self-appointed – deciding who gets to come to their precious little party, doesn’t that make the whole thing a bit pointless? Because how many ordinary people will really want to get involved with that? And how truly representative would such a partnership be of our community?
Comments
Mike Ford - you seem to be under the impression that the e-democracy forum for the Greater Bedminster area is actually the Greater Bedminster Community Partnership. You have been excluded from e-democracy for not following their guidelines (which are international and that means world wide). You are not banned from GBCP membership you just like to claim your are because you think it gives you a sense of notoriety. It doesn't, it just underlines the fact that you're desperately seeking attention.
The discussion about BCFC has been deferred to a wider audience and in the meantime someone of us are actually doing research into other partnerships & their relationships with major players. e.g. Crystal Palace & Croydon, Middlesbrough FC. It's called research and it's what well informed people do.
By Sidderley at 23:12 on 13/04/10
Report"join the partnership and argue with her. Whats so difficult about that? "
There's lots difficult about that when your comments get held in moderation for over 3 weeks....
By Mike_Ford at 09:33 on 22/02/10
ReportThe answer Mrs_2009 is don't vote for her, but if she gets in, join the partnership and argue with her. Whats so difficult about that?
She is entitled to a view just as you are, and if she puts that to the test of a public vote, then you know what to do.
By Mr_Shannon at 00:39 on 21/02/10
ReportWell, that's fine as far as it goes, Mr Shannon, but one of those 'individuals expressing their opinion on a public forum' was actually Tess Green, who - correct me if I'm wrong - is hoping to be the next Green councillor for Southville...which sort of blasts a hole straight through your argument. Would she be mindful of her duties as a Councillor to be inclusive and reach out to everyone in her patch...including those residents that might find these particular views of hers harsh and unrepresentative? Difficult! She can't be both! So what are we supposed to extrapolate from that?
By Mrs_W2009 at 19:48 on 20/02/10
ReportI think you've raised an important point here, about who represents who and what and how people get more involved in making decisions for an area, but you've got to differentiate between a public discussion forum, where a couple of individuals make their opinion, and the partnership proper.
I think it is clearly ridiculous for the partnership to exclude BCFC, for all sorts of reasons. BCFC are a major and important part of Bedminster and do alot of good work. However, they should be a member irrespective of whether they do community works, simply because this group needs to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Most members listed probably do nothing like as much community/charity work as they do. I posted to this effect on the forum, but my comment is also taking a long time to be moderated.
But BCFC are already listed on the partners page as being a member and the fact that a few individuals object to this on the public forum (where anyone can post a viewpoint as long as they register) does not mean the partnership is being exclusive. In fact most of the other posts do point out why excluding them would be a mistake, so the public forum seems to have done its job.
Extrapolating the views of a couple of individuals on a public forum to 'the whole partnership is a preserve of an elite Southville set" is going too far. The best way to tackle this is surely to turn up to the meetings and make sure its not the usual suspects. Also, I cannot imagine the Councillors, who are also listed as members, allowing a couple of people to dominate a group. From reading their comments, it seems as if they provide a strong counter balance to stop this from happening.
Chris U
By Mr_Shannon at 16:32 on 15/02/10
ReportShow all Comments