Would you consider getting involved in a community/parish council if there were one in your area of your village/town/city/metro
Also meant to include poll option for no but somehow I've cocked up on that one - can admins add the option?
Of all the anarchists I know, Catch is the most interested in the parish council proposition as a potential site for the recomposition of community power. He has pointed out that many revolutionary movements developed out of state attempts/mistakes like these. I am open to persuasion on it...
Key questions for me would be:
1/ what effect would these have in areas with little or no remaining class culture [if you know what i mean]- the pressure for them to be captured by the 'usual suspects'- middle class 'concerned citizens' and the like...
Would they then make extra-parliamentary activity in those areas harder?
2/ hmmm.. I'll leave it at one for now.
Well worth having a look at this by the way: http://www.communitycouncilsglasgow.co.uk/home.htm
1/ how much autonomy and local power do they have, if any?
2/ what sectors do they have influence over? [i assume planning, housing etc?]
3/ what is the mechanism for turning views into action?
4/ What happens if policy from government conflicts with what the councils articulate that the people want?
i.e./ ==> what structures are there, or could there be, to prevent them sliding into being a mechanism for dissipating and neutralising discontent?
I think it all depends. In Glasgow they way they operate seems to allow for anyone really to join and for the agenda to be opened up following some manoeuvering. Certainly my community council seems to be quite concerned with the police, or rather the failure of the police to tackle anti-social behaviour in the area I live in, in a way that is a bit nimbyish but could be taken in other directions.
Here however they are just moral bodies, altho they do get told certain stuff which is useful for other activity (e.g. consulted on planning applications). A decade or so of careful work may allow us to arrogate more powers. Certainly I also feel it's the only thing we've got to a tactic beyond stumbling round in the dark the whole time.
I don't really know how community councils work. If they are just another body that you elect people to so they can make decisions for you then I'm not interested.
I think starting community unionism might be more promising (not that I have any experience of it in practise). If ordinary people could meet in their town or village hall or somewhere and make decisions and exert influence for themselves that would be better. I don't see how any elected body that makes policy and action decisions on peoples behalf is nay different from a state, even if a more localised version.
has the IWCA folded? What is the spread of their operations? What happened to the Glasgow branch?
No idea about the Glasgow branch, but the IWCA still exists in London and Oxford, plus there's Hackney Independent, the former IWCA branch, which is active. Maybe info about glasgow on www.iwca.info?
Of all the anarchists I know.
Apart from that bit you is correct.
1/ what effect would these have in areas with little or no remaining class culture [if you know what i mean]- the pressure for them to be captured by the 'usual suspects'- middle class 'concerned citizens' and the like...
That's exactly what's supposed to happen to them. Doesn't mean it has to be like that.
1/ how much autonomy and local power do they have, if any?
although I think NuLabour's community councils that we might get in London will be a muchly fucked up version of a proper parish council*, parish councils have some real powers - allotments, bus shelters (
), meeting spaces, bicycle lanes, raising tax, and parish referendums (not legally binding referendums sadly), and the legal requirement to be consulted on all planning applications. Although any recommendations aren't binding, it'd be a useful way to get that sort of information as Nick points out.
Doubt the new "community councils will be like that though, hence the asterisk.
*I have a feeling the "community councils" they're piloting in Waltham Forest might be a sign of what's to come. Not been to one yet, but it's a talking shop with a ten grand budget per year. The punyness of the ten grand is shown by the fact that councillors get an addition £5K allowance for "chairing" them (even though they already have unpaid community chairs.). Their complete lack of useful powers could be a point of struggle in itself - local paper has plenty of pissed of letters about how they're ignored and can't do much.
4/ What happens if policy from government conflicts with what the councils articulate that the people want?
As with everything there'd be an attempt to either co-opt it or shut it down. The potential for a community council to reach a broad section of the local community, rather than being an activist-based thing, means there might be real resistance to this when (not if) it happened. Or it might just go to shit.
We should be looking at building up groups locally regardless of whether community or parish councils are in place, but with a mind to opening up any institution like that (including borough/district/town councils IMO, although it ain't popular) to widespread directly democratic participation as much as possible. If those groups (which are likely to be made up of already politicised people unfortunately) can circulate information between different areas of the community, and try to build up communication networks which allow for direct communication and self-organisation, that's the best method to prevent any involvement in specific institutions from being co-opted.
If these organisations are set up as electoral bodies, then the way to deal with that is to elect people to them as recallable delegates, force the meetings open to general attendance, and force them to be genuinely democratic bodies based on majority voting of anyone in attendance (or delegate voting from local assemblies if it's over a wide area). Once people get a taste of what actual democracy could be, they won't allow them to be "representative", or worse "consultative" bodies - they'll either take them over or smash them. If they don't, they'll be there co-opting dissent and getting involved in business partnerships or whatever other shit they're supposed to get up to anyway.
could someone just define these terms: community and parish councils. are we talking community/residents associations with a regionally different name? Or is it traditional style parish councils?
Hi
I've been temping for the local council, so I'm totally into parishes at the moment. I was amazed to see the old parish system is still used.
Love
Chris
could someone just define these terms: community and parish councils. are we talking community/residents associations with a regionally different name? Or is it traditional style parish councils?
Sorry enelpozo. We're talking about a couple of things.
In the main, we're talking about traditional style parish councils - like Dibley. Useful list of stuff they can do is here:
http://compton.parish.hants.gov.uk/powers.htm
Current community councils are exactly the same as parish councils, just with a different name. If one doesn't exist in your area, you can usually start one up.
However, Labour has been talking about extending them across the country - into London which doesn't have any and is banned from starting them for example. I assume if/when they do this they'll strip all the useful powers away and leave an impotent husk of consultation and partnership. There are "community forums" in East London, which I think are trial versions of what they're planning.
yep, I get it. But how can anarchists support these? I assume it's the same across the country, but where I live parish councils are made up of members of the main political parties, still with the same desires to keep power in the hands of the few. In fact, it is the members of parish councils who are elected by the local elections. In my opinion, they are another form of the state, locally.
unless I'm getting the wrong end of the discussion here?
they are another form of the state, locally.
But indeed! The idea is that though they are an institution of the state they are localised enough to be of benefit to real community organisation and not subject to the usual law of power corrupts since "allotments, bus shelters , meeting spaces, bicycle lanes, raising tax" hardly constitute rule over others to any real extent. This kind of thing makes me cringe, especially when it comes to getting anarchists elected to "influence" community politcs, but I'll admit I don't know a lot about it and I'd be interested in hearing from Nick and others on their experience; if any...
Some thoughts;
Does it amount to a pathetic grasping of anarchists for practical participation when we all know there's fuck-all at the moment?
Though it's on a much smaller scale, surely Libertarian Municipalism is subject to the exact same criticisms that everyday Parliamentarianism is? The fallacy that electioneering, even in this form, is democratic or genuine "power with the people" (explain how delegation and the recall of these would work?). Having to work within the law? Accept judgement by far stronger opposition in those councils, town councils and the government? Appearing to acknowledge and respect the existing ruling apparatus? Perhaps curbing a long-term revolutionary approach for short-term reformist goals? Seperation of intra- and extra- council politics? Would you be willing to proceed to town councils as well? Sit next to the BNP?!
Really, to what extent (ooh, reminds me of exams), will influence in community councils actually have over society? Is it based in a view that misunderstands the role of economic organisation (ie. the capitalist mode of production) over all politics...no amount of local council participation can counter re/production of the status quo. The best outcomes are the implementation of libertarian reforms, raising awareness of our position and perhaps building a genuine active community backing - could this not be done through "direct action", using non-council organisation?
Wouldn't touch them with a bargepole personally.
yep, I get it. But how can anarchists support these? I assume it's the same across the country, but where I live parish councils are made up of members of the main political parties
Where I've lived, it's been my Dad (the vicar) and assorted old ladies. I've never heard of one being party political, but for the past 6 years I've not lived anywhere near one, so don't have much practical experience of them. I admit they're really horrible and very un-fashionable, that's part of why they're interesting.
In my opinion, they are another form of the state, locally.
Schools and hospitals are run by the state as well. Fire stations, housing benefit, council housing, state pension. Local independent shops are little bit of capitalism, locally. Workers' co-ops, trade-unions - all part of capital. I use most of those things (and have worked in some of them) despite them being organised by, legislated by, and provided by the state or capitalists. Many of them have been set up as a reaction to working class resistance over the past 150 years - to divert it, neutralise it or co-opt it. I'll still use it.
The test of revolutionary activity, as Ed (who'll doubtless come on this thread and give me a ticking off later) always says, should be "does it further the tendencies for libertarian self-organisation and communism in the class, and does it have a chance of providing real gains?". The initial test shouldn't be "is it a part of the state" - since that a priori assumes that nothing the state does can be used against it.
I think there's an (untested) chance of this particular activity helping towards a genuinely direct democratic movement in this country, and I'm at least going to keep an eye out on the legislation if it comes through - in the same way I keep an eye out on anti-terrorism legislation for the opposite reason.
I said this on the old thread but can't find it, so will say it again:
The Parisian Sections were set up by the French monarchy. The soviets were pretty much city councils:
The first Soviet was established in Ivanovna-Voznesensk during the 1905 Textile Strike. It began as a strike committee but developed into an elected body of the town's workers. One of its main leaders was a Bolshevik called Mikhail Frunze. Over the next few months Soviets of Workers Deputies were established in around 50 different towns.In St Petersburg 500 workers elected one deputy and in Moscow it was 400 whereas in Odessa it was 100. With the failings of the Duma, the Soviets were seen as legitimate workers' government. Soviets challenged the power of Nicholas II and attempted to enforce promises made in the October Manifesto such as the freedom of the press, assembly and association.
Would you have boycotted the soviets because people were elected to them?
Does it amount to a pathetic grasping of anarchists for practical participation when we all know there's fuck-all at the moment?
Maybe. What of it? 
The fallacy that electioneering, even in this form, is democratic or genuine "power with the people" (explain how delegation and the recall of these would work?)
Delegation. One thing that could happen with decent community support is simply turning any meeting of elected representatives into a public meeting whether they like it or not. - there's a legal requirement on borough councils to admit the public to all meetings apart from confidential ones - councillors could either refuse to go to confidential meetings or simply make their content public in the press. Parish councils even easier. Actions against this would likely result in further resistance.
Any candidate, before any kind of election, there ought to be something in place to ensure recallability - one possibility is an agreement that if a certain number of people vote to remove them (public meeting, petition), they'll stand down for a by-election. If they didn't stand down in the face of that, some kind of knee-capping might be in order. The advantage of this is that it begins to bring the idea of recallability to mainstream discussion. Rotation is another possibility but one I've not thought about.
In terms of mandating, regular meetings are held, open to all. The results of these decisions would be binding on the delegate and they'd vote accordingly. Even council wards are small enough for this to be possible unless every single person living there turned up all the time. You can't expect people to turn up to public meetings all the time, so you'd need to publicise issues and encourage RAs and workplace committees (like you'd do anyway right?). None of it would be perfect, but nothing is.
Having to work within the law?
Why?
Accept judgement by far stronger opposition in those councils, town councils and the government?
Happens anyway.
Appearing to acknowledge and respect the existing ruling apparatus?
er no, not if you're honest about your intentions.
Perhaps curbing a long-term revolutionary approach for short-term reformist goals?
Let me know when you find one eh? This is potentially part of a long-term revolutionary approach. Most short-term reforms have been made as a response to revolutionary (or proto-revolutionary) activity. At the moment most of those reforms are being stripped away due to the lack of any such activity.
Seperation of intra- and extra- council politics?
can you explain that one?
Would you be willing to proceed to town councils as well?
Well Hackney Independent runs candidates for London Borough of Hackney, and I work with them, so I guess I already have. I have all kinds of problems with it but I won't write it off as "the state maaan". It's a very small part of what they do though, as it should be.
Sit next to the BNP?!
Remind me how many places that'd be likely to happen?
Really, to what extent (ooh, reminds me of exams), will influence in community councils actually have over society?
More than there is by any form of revolutionary politics now?
I'm not talking about simply trying to get one or two anarchists to go sit with the old ladies twice a month (no, no, no, no, nono, no, no, no, no parasan!) I'm talking about transforming them into directly democratic bodies, albeit ones with some actual power no matter how limited. Since they may extend all over the country in a couple of years, there's the potential for that idea to spread nationally - and for them to federate independently as separate political entities from the rest of the state. In terms of practical stuff they could do, work around local food and energy production could potentially provide real long-term gains for example.
Is it based in a view that misunderstands the role of economic organisation (ie. the capitalist mode of production) over all politics...no amount of local council participation can counter re/production of the status quo.
Not participation itself no, but direct democracy in political and economic matters is fundamentally opposed to capitalist reproduction - when decision about resource use and provision are taken directly to satisfy human need.
The best outcomes are the implementation of libertarian reforms, raising awareness of our position and perhaps building a genuine active community backing - could this not be done through "direct action", using non-council organisation?
Why not? Why not both?
Direct "non-council organisation" on the local level often boils down to lobbying the council or other bodies for reform - as much a part of representative democracy as anything else - it's rare that decisions are taken and implemented by people directly, which is what I'm suggesting here.
A lot of "direct-action", even the most spectacular protests, is very, very indirect. It's effectively a petition - whether a walking petition or a running around chased by cops petition. Much direct action is trying to change decisions being made by those in charge, not challenging the structures which allow them to make decisions in the first place. In other words it's almost always about policy changes rather than structural ones.
i mostly agree with catch - if community councils come in round my way, i'll be up for seeing how we can use them to get what we want.
parish councils can and have been a site of struggle - in the village i lived in up north, politics were a low priority however the local paper discovered that the parish council had been unelected for 50 years - the same tories (independent councillors but all local tory members) had been simply appointing each other as members retired or died, the outcry caused a big surge in political interest and elections were called which had a 96% turnout and all the incumbants lost their seats...
Catch, I think what you are proposing here would be an almost hopeless waste of time and energies. You seem to be arguing for the democratisation of an apparatus of the state?! Even from within, that's a hell of a lot of work. And, I'm not sure what your point about benefits and schools etc. meant, since parish councils are the state, whereas the examples you talked about in your reply to my post (two of which are above) are simply administered by the state. They're different things.
In any case, to go back to the subject. I think your personal experience of parish councils may be an uncommon one - it sounds a lot more like the traditional community association, which anarchists should be involved in. As I have mentioned before, most PC have elected members of the main parties. For example, Labour, Conservatives etc. all of whom have a belief in the state, and this is undebatable, whether on the national level or parish level. What your talking about seems like trying to convince these people, from inside or outside, to work in a direct democratic way. One example you give is to somehow make public non-public meetings. Could you imagine a Tory agreeing to and acting upon this? A die-hard statist? And to take this a step further could you imagine that person disregarding the law and local regulations in favour of direct democracy? Those that are so in favour of strong law and order? No, definitely not, not even at the benefit of their community members.
You've said there's a difference between making policy and improving the community. I agree. But then why not do this with your community association? Even if there isn't one, it would be easier to set up than petitioning the PC for a bus shelter and getting it. Where I live our community association almost acts the way your proposing the PCs work: they provide their own newspaper, they're trying to reclaim used Territorial Army land for the community, re-designing the road layout for traffic calming etc. They were even up in arms that the council decided to re-pave a pavement and that local people hadn't decided it. All the things that you talk of PCs doing but without bothering with the state, open to all people, policy decided by everyone who wants to be involved. A much better opportunity of getting involved in the community then the parish council any day. 
Catch, I think what you are proposing here would be an almost hopeless waste of time and energies. You seem to be arguing for the democratisation of an apparatus of the state?! Even from within, that's a hell of a lot of work. And, I'm not sure what your point about benefits and schools etc. meant, since parish councils are the state, whereas the examples you talked about in your reply to my post (two of which are above) are simply administered by the state. They're different things.
Civil servants and state employees aren't the state? It's a set of social relations backed up in the end by violence, the elected bodies of which are only a tiny part. It's like saying that workers aren't part of capital.
What your talking about seems like trying to convince these people, from inside or outside, to work in a direct democratic way.
No, not those people.
One example you give is to somehow make public non-public meetings.
Could you imagine a Tory agreeing to and acting upon this? A die-hard statist?
No. But a lot of meetings are already public, they're just boring and poorly attended. Who gives a shit if they agree?
And to take this a step further could you imagine that person disregarding the law and local regulations in favour of direct democracy?
Not really, but if faced with 200 angry residents who've turned up to their once quiet meetings they might not have much of a choice at least in the short term. And if you were going run candidates for election to these things, you'd be looking at kicking them all out anyway.
Where I live our community association almost acts the way your proposing the PCs work: they provide their own newspaper, they're trying to reclaim used Territorial Army land for the community, re-designing the road layout for traffic calming etc. They were even up in arms that the council decided to re-pave a pavement and that local people hadn't decided it.
That all sounds interesting and more than what's going on where I am. If your community association took over the list of powers I linked to above, would it stop them from doing those things?
open to all people, policy decided by everyone who wants to be involved.
which is what I'm suggesting.
civil servants and parish councillors are different. The former are more concerned with doing the leg-work for the government, whereas PCers are the government on a parish level. Perhaps the word government would have been better for me to use rather than state.
I am sort of reading your post about 200 angry people turning up to a parish meeting thinking, wtf for. To listen to them whinge and whine about nothing? Or maybe about the village fete? Seriously, I doubt you could find 200 people interested enough to get angry about a normal PC meeting. It would be the same form of 'direct action' you were talking about earlier, surely: appealing to those in power in the same way as a petition would. Why not get those 200 people to ignore the PC and do things themselves? Forget the parish council, THAT would be direct action
civil servants and parish councillors are different. The former are more concerned with doing the leg-work for the government, whereas PCers are the government on a parish level. Perhaps the word government would have been better for me to use rather than state.
OK. I don't have a problem with government (rather than "the government") at all - not the definition of it that separates it completely from a state system anyway. Same as I'm very much in favour of democracy.
Depends which definition you use, but google dictionary comes up with some that are very compatible with my idea of a libertarian communist society.
1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
7. Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.
Assuming the body that did these things was directly democratic, no problem with that at all.
Anyway, civil servants have way more power than a back bench MP, maybe even junior minister, let alone these people:
I am sort of reading your post about 200 angry people turning up to a parish meeting thinking, wtf for. To listen to them whinge and whine about nothing?
That was more about a town/district/borough council tbh. and they do control important resources, like schools, people's homes, rubbish collection. Kalabine's already given an example of a similar thing happening.
ok, I can see we've got our definitions mixed up in a big tangle here. And I can see how you personally can be in favour of government (as opposed to 'the...') but surely you can't be in favour of 'the control and administration of public policy'? Control of policy? These people deciding things on our behalf?
Right forget the PC debate, my experience of what these things mean is too different to yours. I come from a very rural area of England and moaning about litter and talking about the village fete is about all these things really do. But district councils... now they have some clout. Are these the things you'd like to be involved in?
To move this along a bit, how many people are involved in their local community/residents association, and what are their experiences of them?
there ought to be something in place to ensure recallability - one possibility is an agreement that if a certain number of people vote to remove them (public meeting, petition), they'll stand down for a by-election. If they didn't stand down in the face of that, some kind of knee-capping might be in order.
What, like some other community group/meeting outside of the council to ensure work inside it doesn't conflict? That's your split. If there existed a strong community group not based in electioneering or the present state structure, you'd think that'd be enough...a start for everday participation. I've seen these spontaneous groupings arise a few times, usually around a particular cause, but they never last long, and never develop a strong and stable stance. If there existed a good example of one it would, yes, petition the council to change certain things (since that's where the money is) but it would not be subject the same rule of the council. It would radical by its nature, even if it was still limited in what it could do.
In a community council, if you could get it opened to the public, and assuming they would be interested, they wouldn't be allowed to take part in the actual proceedings, would they? They'd have to do everything through the "delegate". I'd repeat, how could you establish this delegation process? That is build community backing from the start?...if that was done wouldn't you make the community secondary to the council?
Schools and hospitals are run by the state as well.
Hey, that's a silly comparison. Look! You're as bad as the bourgeoisie you're buying, consuming and producing inside capitalism! True but definetely not the same. Why is it anarchists reject parliaments but (usually) whole-heartedly support radical unionism? The argument goes that whilst unions prop the state, they are not the same governing institution. Rank-and-file solidarity is not the same as following some representative or leader. It's action inside the old, but not part of the same process that continues the old society.
"Having to work within the law?"Why?
Councillors seen supporting illegal activities get suspended. You have to work within the council's parameters, as a councillor respect their decision and mould your extra-council organisation (if any) around that.
"Accept judgement by far stronger opposition in those councils, town councils and the government?"Happens anyway.
It does but it shouldn't. Anarchists in community councils will not change that.
"Sit next to the BNP?!"Remind me how many places that'd be likely to happen?
How many seats do the BNP have/are challenging? Seriously, gonnae sit at a table to negotiate with them?...might as well if you'll do the same for Tories, Labourites and other loons.
A lot of "direct-action", even the most spectacular protests, is very, very indirect. It's effectively a petition - whether a walking petition or a running around chased by cops petition.
I don't mean activism as direct action; fuck no. I'm not interesting in petitioning anyone, but that's what you'd be doing in a council environment too...if not more so. As enelpozo has stated wouldn't it be easier to petition those authorities in regards a small-scale reform or change without actually entering into their council? The creation of genuine worker and community groupings that act in rejection of the present state apparatus would be direct democracy. Community groupings linked together, with industrial unions and councils. A major act of self-empowerment is in people rejecting their token consultation processes for our own independent action. Any amount of participation in their councils, commitees, parliament or executive flies in the face of that.
I admit, at this stage, maybe we might have to enter into some limited council activity to try to provide a start for other activities, but I really dont think, even with the best outcome, they could represent anymore than a crude replacement for genuine direct democracy. At the best you could get elected a small minority of anarchists, and then open the meetings to more public scrutiny (again, assuming the public would be interested) and then it would be a case of petitioning and influencing the other major parties, groups; and for what? Basic involvement by ordinary people that can only evolve in isolation of existing power structures, if it is to be in any way radical, and would've been better to have started that way.
Would you have boycotted the soviets because people were elected to them?
Is it not the case that the greatest and most powerful soviets were those established, run and acting "spontaneously" and in autonomy? Those that didn't put any great emphasis on delegates or elections in the first place?
ANARKY ALL THE WAY!!!
I'm away until tomorrow evening, so will try to get back later. Don't think I've flounced out like revol on the Bookchin thread
To move this along a bit, how many people are involved in their local community/residents association, and what are their experiences of them?
i am heavily involved in my local residents association, i also edit the newsletter of the federation that covers all residents association in our borough, my RA and others in the borough are fairly militant activites range from getting litter sorted, organising massively successful free community festivals (several a year around tottenham), getting traffic calming, pedestrian crossings, and lighting installed, opposing over development and yuppie flats, opposing post office cloasures, defending local services (including cafes and pubs) from being shut down, dealing with red light districts, crime prevention, anti social behaviour, etc etc etc...
some campaigns have been more successful than others, some have been more progressive than others
i also edit the newsletter of the federation that covers all residents association in our borough
wow, we've got something in common. i design the newspaper the CA here!
sounds quite like ours, we had a big problem with litter. Council bizarrely removed about 4 bins from the area so instead of waiting for them to do anything, the CA bought a load of rubbish grapping things a meet once a month (or fortnightly) to do a community litter pick. Now THAT is direct action!
I've been wanting to get a hell of a lot more involved with the CA here but their meetings are on the nights that I work! 
Are you involved as an anarchist or just as a local resident?
but surely you can't be in favour of 'the control and administration of public policy'? Control of policy? These people deciding things on our behalf?
I'm in favour of people deciding policy through face-to-face majority voting (or something closely resembling that) in meetings open to all, then this being carried out by delegates.
If it was something that needed to be carried out over a wide area, then I'd be in favour of the same face-to-face voting, then a delegate meeting to see if there's agreement between localities, possibly with a bit of leeway to make decisions within strict boundaries based on what other delegates have brought in, or possibly just having to report back. So yeah, I think people should have democratic control of public policy, yes. Especially around energy, food production, housing, which needs some co-ordination.
But district councils... now they have some clout. Are these the things you'd like to be involved in?
Not going up for election for, no, tbh I'd rather not have to deal with them at all, but they're there (well it's London Boroughs for me, but much the same) and I'm proposing one way to deal with them. I'd support candidates on a (close as possible to) direct democracy/working class self-organisation platform for councils at that level and have done so with Hackney Independent. Even having someone who can get information about "where the money goes", and stuff like using the councillors' allowance to open a shopfront in the ward - regardless of changing any actual decisions. I can see benefit from. HI doesn't stand any candidates unless they've been doing non-electoral stuff in an area for some time, and they do non-electoral stuff regardless of whether there's an election or what the result is. Not perfect by any means but worth doing some stuff on, since every other activity we do has some value in-itself - kids cinema, free newsletter to 8000 homes etc.
To move this along a bit, how many people are involved in their local community/residents association, and what are their experiences of them?
There's no RA where I am, just moved three months ago, although I'm keeping an eye out for issues to start one up over.
How are these things going in England then - has the government instituted them yet?
Current thought amongst some members of the chalkboard seems to suggest we get right into them (Scotland's had them for ages but thusfar no grouping has ever sought to get involved in them) - lib-munic and aw that.
---
Also would someone clarify a few things for me - has the IWCA folded? What is the spread of their operations? What happened to the Glasgow branch?