Community Voice Draft Policy Document

So, what if you are elected CV, with all these policies.

Suppose the community in your ward for example are enthused by a particular private company that wants to provide care in the area.

This contradicts policy:

"keep city council care provision within the council and resist privatisation"

Suppose you are in a ward that is still lucky enough to have any high school at all and suppose it is not an academy. Suppose the local community really want to push for academy status for that school.

This contradicts policy:

"campaign against proposals for school Academies"

Suppose residents in your ward are dead keen to buy their council houses.

This contradicts policy:

"resist any proposals to “sell off” our council housing"

(Personally I'm opposed to privatisation of key essential services, opposed to academies and opposed to reduction of council housing stock, but it's not the specific policies that's the point I'm making, it's the principle.)

What do you do? Represent the residents views or stick to your 'Community Voice' party policy.

Or do you say you will 'listen' to residents but end up lecturing them instead, 'consult' with the residents, if they stick to their guns say you just need to 'communicate better' what you know as a superior being is 'for their own good', add a bit of spin to help that along. Blatantly say you support them and will push for what they want, find a few quotes by asking people you know will agree with you, then go ahead and do what you want anyway. End up just the same as the Labour party (except on these specific policy issues doing the opposite).

The difference being that Labour can shaft the public in this city and still get voted for. Beats me why. Assume it's to do with size of the party. But you're a tiny local party, so don't think you can do that and still get voted for. May not get voted for in the first place.

Thanks for the questions Nicky. Sorry not back sooner - a lot going on at moment!

You make some good points.

Firstly, our policies will be decided by a majority of members at our conference in October 2010. And that means every single member - no ones vote is more important than anothers.

The current polices give a steer to the kinds of beliefs the current member have - we are the only current party to do this in Stoke-on-Trent.

Presumably, because we have put our cards on the table, we will be elected because the majority of people who vote in a ward support us and our policies - currently nobody else is putting forward any policies.

No CV councillors are whipped. So if a particular issue arises that is in conflict with our policies members are free, indeed expected to take into account the views of their communities, not just those that shout the loudest either. I can assure you that Community Voice is about open, transparent debate, that takes people forward together, and not dragging them kicking and screaming.

Recognising differing opinions and views are essential. It's not perfect - but then if you look at every different model of democracy, none of them are perfect. We can only try our best and be judged on our actions.

However, we hope that in future our polcies will reflect what people want - through a number of initiatives I am going to put to community voice tonight that no other group has ever done before.

They may not work but its worth a try - if they are agreeded tonight - then they will roll out over the coming months.

We can't do everything or pick up every single issue - we are only human - we have to prioritise in some way - hopefully with a steer from the community.

As far as being small - we may be small in national terms - but I can tell you we are already processing 40 membership applications - and an application from another councillor - with another 2 considering their options.

For me Community Voice is less about us and the current councillors, but more about giving others the confidence to engage, feel that they have really been listened to, and that it has made a difference.

I would sooner go to a council meeting and have to walk through a crowd of hundreds of people demostrating about what they care about, than nobody turning up because at least we know that the residents and electors really do care about what goes on down here (and not just moaning in the pub about it either).

Nicky,
Get along to the Meeting tonight, and let's enjoy the debate - there's still time.
It's easy to see "politics" as a rigid, fixed thing, entrenched in "public opinion" and prejudices, when of course the reality is very different. In fact, our aspirations are always fluid and developmental, but this can only work if we keep our minds open, and seriously and determindely learn to enjoy the wonderful process of human dialogue. For me, that is what true democracy is all about.
At least, CV is trying to elaborate and grapple with this process.

Bugger - I've missed the meeting havn't I?

Couldn't have come along tonight Kenneth as I've got a very full day tomorrow with a good deal of driving involved (actually less than there was planned - but only just found that out) and I really need to be properly awake for that!

I'm interested in seeing how this locally based and focused unwhipped independent group develops but I do have some doubts. One of which is about dialogue actually, in that it could become too much of a navel gazing talking shop. Another of which would be that it is far left, so may not be able to include enough of the community's concerns and may restrict membership to the far left. And perhaps related to that, it could end up with Labour bashing and BNP bashing tendencies detracting from any proper progress. Especially given that current membership includes those with such tendencies.

Looking at other independent groups and how they have gone, Craig's PCF, no matter how much people may want to have a go at him, had many of the same aims and ideas with regard to scrutiny and independent local policy making. And may have aimed to be more inclusive except it had no councillors, was seen as too far right and I suspect Craig and Terry and Sam in the end just felt more comfortable with themselves and also at least two of them I think rejoined the BNP. Whether CV allows any membership from people who are also members of political parties I don't know? But that does raise questions about compatibility to both groups. Then there was the PIA which did have more members then dwindled and I still wonder what lessons have been learned from that. As for the NAG, that is currently positive as it has evolved into the CV. Another doubt I have is about the main parties letting any locally focused group gather strength. They seemed unable to stop the CIG so instead 'bribed' them with cabinet positions and made them toe the line (although not all of them perhaps). So if CV did thrive the same might happen.

I predict at the next election CV will be slaughtered, but I tend to be pants at predicting election results, thankfully.

Hi, again, Nicky, I missed your contribution tonight. Mike actually said at the Meeting that he really welcomed criticisms, in so far as CV needs to develop itself on the basis of criticism, and I, for one, believe that critical processes, far from being "navel gazing", are essential tools for any social activity, because otherwise one cannot develop all-round perspectives on matters of importance, including campaigning for what we believe is right.
I still maintain that Stoke-on-Trent people have far more in common with each other than we think we have, and certainly the cuts and attacks on wages, unemployment and social dislocation will focus our collective attention on both remediation and some form of "revolutionary" change. We certainly don't want to be forced to suck the mop that cleans up other people's muck.
Everyone at the meeting seemed to enjoy the genuine and focussed debate, and, despite the fact that not everybody agreed, I think it's true to say that we all enjoyed freedom from the censure so apparent in the "political" parties.
I think you are absolutely wrong to describe CV as "left", either "far" or otherwise. Whatever people's backgrounds, I don't think that anybody there would even want to use such fractious terminology, which has been used as a tactic by the established parties to divide ordinary people into opposing camps, and therefore retain the power for themselves. The more that CV talks policies, and the means of realising them, the more outdated and meaningless does such terminology become.
In any case, please have a look at the website, and I'm sure you'll be made most welcome at the next meeting in two weeks time.
In answer to your question, there's nothing in CV to prevent anyone applying to join, but you must "agree to the principles laid out in the "Community Voice" Constitution". Acceptance into Membership is dealt with by a vote of all the current Members at their next appropriate meeting. I personally don't see any problem with this "one person one vote" principle, I hope you will appreciate that we have to be careful in this matter, which we leave to the good sense of the membership.

"used as a tactic by the established parties to divide ordinary people into opposing camps, and therefore retain the power for themselves" - you are absolutely correct there Kenneth. In that sense it would be better for 'left' and 'right', if there are such things, who just want to propose that ordinary people are the ones who make sensible decisions, instead of fighting each other would join forces to challenge the established way of doing things.

Personally I'm not looking to join any party or group at the present time, but I watch what happens with CV with interest.