So Cameron is proposing 5,000 full-time,’professional’ community organizers operating nationwide.
Let’s estimate, conservatively the salary and on-costs at £20,000 per year.
So that’s £100 million per year to cover let’s say 60 million people.
That £1.66 per person per year, if the whole nation is covered – obviously a lot more if it’s more concentrated.
I don’t know where the money’s coming from, though I’m told by email, in response to my earlier post, by someone closer to this action than I am, that:
The way they get round the astronomical costs that you identify for hiring community organisers is that the only costs for the community organisers which they are going to meet will be in training, and as part of their training they will learn how to do fund-raising to pay for their salaries. Don’t laugh. That is actually their plan.
As a reference, the scheme at the cost set out above would cost between 5% and 8% of all the charitable giving by all 8,000 grant making Trusts & Foundations in the UK, or around 100% of all arts funding. This is just for the staffing costs, and covers nothing in the way of costs for any community projects emanating from the organization.
The only realistic way it can be paid for is by reducing existing grants and contracts to the voluntary and community sector (either directly or by squeezing Trusts and Foundations).
On the other hand, is what I was proposing a media-based, politicised, ‘community organization’ project costing around £80,000 per year to cover a medium-sized town of 30-40,000 households (let’s say £80,000 people).
That’s £1 per person.
Unlike The Tories, I have set out fairly clearly where the whole cost might come from, including local advertising, union sponsorship, party contributions as well as direct sales and other commercial income and, in time, co-opted statutory PR budgets.
Of course, when I suggested the kind of scale of operation needed, I was roundly ridiculed e.g.
Certainly, there are many more questions than answers at the moment in the plans announced today by Cameron for 5,000 ‘full time, professional community organizers’.
At first sight, it really does look like more back of a fag packet stuff, but perhaps more details will emerge. I won’t hold my breath, mind.
Questions include how they’re going to be paid for, of course. 5,000 professionals on full-time contracts doesn’t come cheap. At, let’s say £20,000 per year inclusive of on-costs, we’re talking about a cool £100 million per year, even before we start thinking about training and recruitment and support.
This can’t all come, as Cameron seems to suggest it might, out of the derided but actually very good Futurebuilders programme (I should know, the voluntary organisation I run has a £160,000 loan for a community nursery and family centre.). That’s because the whole operational budget is only £51 million in 2010-11.
So it’s almost certain, if this programme were to ahead, that it would be calling to a great extent on funds already disbursed by central and local authorities to provide all the staff who already have a role very similar to the one now envisaged as utterly new and innovative by Cameron. Has he never heard of Councils for Voluntary Service, for example, or enquired as to what they might do?
Then of course there is the broader question of how the new community organiser role relates to that of the local councillor, which I’ll no doubt write a great deal more about, not least because I’m both a local councillor and a pretty decent ‘community organiser’ having personally draw in over a third of a million quid to my village of 2,500 people in the last couple of years, as well as organising the saving of the school.
Related to this is who exactly will be responsible for the appointment of these community organisers, and what will be their brief if and when they’re given the money to do so. It is of course, no great surprise to see Stuart Etherington, the business-like manager of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, endorse Cameron’s announcement. There’s business to be had there, not least in relation to the ongoing turf wars with other voluntary sector infrastructure organisations.
More specifically in terms on what the community organizers will or won’t do, there is the question of just how combative and challenging to existing structures will they be permitted to be under their new contracts. The concept of hidden state power through the depoliticization of the notion of community will not, of course, be unfamiliar to most readers of this blog.
In general, then, what at first sight appears to be bold and new move by the Conservatives, will turn out – I suspect both to be a reannouncement of old monies if it ever comes to pass – and also fraught with the kind of power asymmetries that will make real change, real local control, a figment of the policy makers’ imagination.
(Coming later when I”ve organized muy community for a bit: a wantonly gleeful ‘In your face, trolls!’ response to those who trolled this post about the costs of media-initiated ‘community organising’, and how to go about it. Do the comparative maths, trolls.)
In a case that could have philosophical idealists wetting themselves for decades to come, by naming something before the fact of it, we should adapt to the Conservative attempt at framing inheritance tax as a ‘death tax’. Here’s my proposal:
Step 1. We suspend habeas corpus for those who use the phrase ‘death tax’, or any other such attempts to name a fairly banal law so as to inspire fevered opposition to it. So the entire Tory Party, to begin with, starting with Lansley.
Step 2. We execute all the aforesaid and confiscate all their property, to be liquidated and used to fund universal comprehensive, elderly care. This programme will be called the “Live Long and Prosper Tax”.
Step 3. We collect the votes of elderly people and Trekkies everywhere and guarantee victory at the next general election.
Step 4. (Optional) We liquify the remains of all those who have died (or committed suicide through stupid political posturing) and use this to feed the living, who we will connect to a giant virtual reality machine in which Gore was elected President, communism works and nobody is offended ever.
We will call this the “Matrix Tax”.
Alright, this really is the last one. I promise to stop now. Honest
The news that Network Rail are to challenge the RMT strike ballot, due to be carried out during the rush hours of April 6th – 9th, should surprise absolutely nobody. Yet again, the law is being used by employers to prevent staff from going on strike, regardless of whether or not the majority of workers involved support the strike being used.
In this case, 54% of RMT workers backed the call to strike, 77% backed action short of a strike. Bearing in mind that the Transport Salaried Staffs Association (TSSA) are to come out on strike at the same time, and that the strike as announced will probably overlap with the next round of British Airways Cabin Crew strikes, the choice to strike is the right one.
Network Rail’s press statement declared their “responsibility to all our passengers and freight users, and to the country as a whole, to do everything we can to avert a strike. Talks continue and our aim is a negotiated settlement, but we must explore all avenues at our disposal and that includes legal ones.”
This is pretty telling; for Network Rail, the legal challenge has got nothing to do with the validity of the strike ballot, it’s simply a way of stopping the strike. As I mentioned in a previous article, this is becoming a feature of every single strike – regardless of whether or not the strike is clearly supported by a majority, employers challenge it in the courts.
Short of a judge ordering a re-ballot, I’ll be down on the picket lines come next week. RMT and TSSA members have been strong supporters of Unite’s recent battle on behalf of the BA cabin crews. The RMT regularly backs left campaigns like Youth Fight for Jobs, and is key to setting up socialist platforms across the country for this election. They deserve our support, because a defeat for one union represents a dangerous signal to all employers.
Lord Carey, about whom I have had impolite things to say in the past, seems determined to storm about in his tea cup, whipping up a righteous indignation amongst tabloids and those predisposed to such indignation. His most recent stunt is another high profile letter, this time to the Sunday Telegraph (predictably) complaining of bias against Christians.
The letter, which can be read in full here, begins thus:
SIR – On March 29, a Christian nurse, Shirley Chaplin, will take the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust to the Exeter Employment Tribunal.
This dedicated nurse, who has cared for thousands of patients over 30 years, was told by the trust to remove from her neck a cross she first wore at her confirmation service over 40 years ago.
She has worn the cross every day since her confirmation as a sign of her Christian faith, a faith which led to her vocation in nursing, and which has sustained her in that vital work ever since.
Mrs Chaplin refused to remove her cross and, as a result, was prevented from working in a patient-facing role.
It would seem that the NHS trust would rather lose the skills of an experienced nurse and divert scarce resources to fighting a legal case, instead of treating patients.
The uniform policy of the NHS trust permits exemptions for religious clothing. This has been exercised with regard to other faiths, but not with regard to the wearing of a cross around the neck.
Even the Daily Mail managed to report that this woman was asked to remove her cross for ‘elf’n’safety reasons. She wore it above her clothes, and refused to put it underneath them. Judging by the picture attached to that Mail article, it exists on a fairly long chain and is in danger of contact should a nurse lean over a patient.
In 2006, the BMA recommended that doctors stop wearing neckties for precisely this reason, as they were washed less frequently than other items of clothing and had greater risk of contact. This was recommended as a means to inhibit the spread of MRSA. No doubt there is a similar medical logic to this officious move against a nurse’s cross.
So far as I’m concerned, the item either is a risk to health, in which case it should be banned across every hospital, or it is not and it should be permitted. Things don’t get much simpler. Far be it from me to step in the way of some religious crusade, against an imaginary slight, on the part of crusty Anglican relics.
The letter continues:
Furthermore, Mrs Chaplin has been informed that the Court requires evidence of the fact that Christians wear crosses visibly around the neck. It cannot be right that judges are unaware of such a basic practice.[…]
The cross is ubiquitous in Christian devotion from the earliest times and clearly the most easily recognisable Christian symbol. For many Christians, wearing a cross is an important expression of their Christian faith and they would feel bereft if, for some unjustifiable reason, they were not allowed to wear it. To be asked by an employer to remove or “hide” the cross, is asking the Christian to hide their faith.
Any policy that regards the cross as “just an item of jewellery” is deeply disturbing and it is distressing that this view can ever be taken.
In deciding whether or not something should be covered by the religious exemptions, the existence of which Carey acknowledges, surely it makes sense to have testimony from people of a given religion that an article of clothing is important to their faith. In the case of Sikhism or Islam, specific holy documents cover the topic.
There is no similar elevation of the wearing of a cross on a necklace for Christians by the New Testament. Now, I don’t agree with this method of approaching the subject; in the case of health professionals, either something is a danger to patients’ health or it is not. If not, allow it; if so, ban it. But this is not Lord Carey’s objection.
Carey specifically objects to what I’ve suggested – that the cross on a necklace be treated like any other piece of jewellery.
His problem is that Christianity no longer has the right to unthinking exemptions from the same sort of rules which everyone else has to follow. It is with the decline of Christianity in the UK, and the ebb of its control over the State, as implied by Carey’s evident desire that judges treat Christian icons as deserving of special treatment.
There is another section, from the elipsis above, which deserves comment:
This is yet another case in which the religious rights of the Christian community are being treated with disrespect. We are deeply concerned at the apparent discrimination shown against Christians and we call on the Government to remedy this serious development.
In a number of cases, Christian beliefs on marriage, conscience and worship are simply not being upheld. There have been numerous dismissals of practising Christians from employment for reasons that are unacceptable in a civilised country. We believe that the major parties need to address this issue in the coming general election.
I have a lot of sympathy for people dismissed for upholding their conscience. After all, if we remove religion from the equation for a moment, isn’t asking other workers not to cross picket lines an example of appealing to the conscience of the individual? This type of thing calls for a new departure in industrial democracy.
In the second example, where an Islington Council registrar was dismissed for essentially refusing to do her job, we may not agree with or admire the homophobic sentiments located there. On the other hand, we shouldn’t make common cause with an overbearing State; we should instead ask a) was there enough work on regular marriages to keep her busy elsewhere and b) were her colleagues willing to make accommodation for her?
Instances such as these are not ones where medical science will be called on to judge health risks potentially occasioned by clothing, or whether safety risks are possible due to carrying what may be considered a weapon in public spaces, where it can represent a serious problem. They can be resolved with understanding.
What they shouldn’t be used for, as Lord Carey as well as Dr. Sentamu and the Catholic prelate of Westminster, Vincent Nichols have all done, is to attack ‘secularism’ and on several occasions atheism. They are not the result of these things – and many of them will not be resolved by the abandoning of Labour’s Equality Bill – which has been a recent hobbyhorse for this type of sentiment from clerics.
Nor should we draw the conclusions that all the signatories to this letter have done, that ‘the religious rights of the Christian community are being treated with disrespect.’
People still go to worship without trouble. They are free to live according to their beliefs – to the point of being according specific exemptions in many fields, e.g. the right of a Doctor to refuse a woman an abortion on grounds of religious belief. Key Christian festivals are still national festivals – Easter and Christmas for example.
By and large, Christians have little cause for complaint. Letters such as Carey’s, and his many co-signatories, simply serve to create a lot of noise without ever actually solving anything.