About Social Media Today
This has been a long time coming (the consultation took place last year) so the sense of anticipation has been almost palpable. So what goodies are being dangled before us to turn our towns and cities into vibrant, inclusive, prosperous places?
Well, we've got the promises made in the budget about bringing forward funding for housing and regeneration. And we've got a bright new definition: 'the government's view is that regeneration is a set of activities that reverse economic, social and physical decline in areas where market forces will not do this without support from government.'
But first, let's play spot the difference. Below are two government statements: which do you consider the most far-sighted?
'We know that no community can survive in the long term without employment opportunities. Work provides better social and environmental outcomes and an opportunity for social and economic mobility - particularly for the most disadvantaged in society, for whom it can be an important first step on the road to independence - and we know that those in employment are happier, healthier, and are less likely to get involved in crime. Conversely, worklessness imposes a cost on society - which we cannot afford to ignore... Effective regeneration cannot happen without support from - and full engagement with - the people and communities involved. Local government is uniquely placed to ensure that the needs of local residents and businesses drive regeneration.'
'...there are four imperatives for successful regeneration. First, to revive the economy: without jobs and businesses creating wealth it is impossible for any area to turn itself around. This cannot be divorced from the economic regeneration of bigger areas - cities and regions. Secondly, to revive and empower the community: unless the community is fully engaged in shaping and delivering regeneration, even the best plans on paper will fail to deliver in practice. Thirdly, to improve the key public services, particularly schools, health and the police, as well as to re-engage private services like shops and banks. Fourthly, underpinning all of these is a need for leadership and joint working, not just national but also local leadership. This means developing ways to put deprived communities in the driving seat.'
There are of course strong similarities between the two statements. Both focus on the need for jobs and economic improvement. But there are also important differences.
The first statement is from 'Transforming places; changing lives' - the new regeneration framework. The second is from Tony Blair's foreword to the consultation on the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal in 2000 (someone has to hang onto this stuff, because current ministers and civil servants seem to have a problem with memory loss).
What's changed in the last nine years is that we no longer talk about putting 'deprived communities in the driving seat' or stress the value of letting communities 'shape and deliver' regeneration. Instead there's an expectation that regeneration should have 'support from - and full engagement with - the people and communities involved'.
This is a crucial distinction. It puts regeneration policy back in the category of something done to the people (or at best, with them) rather than by them. The idea of resident leadership has gone. Instead we have a 'single conversation' that sounds very like one bunch of bureaucrats talking to another.
I don't hate bureaucrats like some people do. I think they have a hugely important role, and often do their jobs under difficult circumstances. But it's hard for them to feel the same sort of passion about change as those who live in the communities affected by regeneration plans.
If you look at the regeneration success stories of the last 20 years, you'll find a significant proportion of them arose from local campaigns, and the ones with the most lasting impact have to a disproportionate degree been led by local people. Think of the Eldonians in Liverpool, Seedley and Langworthy Trust in Salford, Balsall Heath Forum in Birmingham, or Goodwin Trust in Hull.
The new regeneration framework has many good and useful things in it, but it doesn't appear to leave any room for change to come from the grassroots. Instead, local government is expected to work with the private sector and the 'third sector'. The usual response from central government is that local government has a democratic mandate in the way resident-led groups don't. But that's naïve - local councillors are a mixed bag at best, and sometimes more concerned with their political careers than with creating better places.
There's one other difference between the approaches of the 2000 and 2009 documents. The first has a sense of urgency and passion; the second, apart from its title, is mainly about methods and structures. My guess is that the new framework could prove a useful tool in the hands of passionate people - but without people who are prepared to inject a bit of life into it, it will just become another forgotten bit of civil service-speak.
