The official blog of The Social Democratic Party.

Living Together – a story of community and loss

The failure to nurture common-good ideas costs all of us - but especially the idealists who try to make communities work.

By: Andrew Bence

The Government promises a massive house-building programme, yet there’s little mention of how to build communities. I don’t mean the specious so-called communities of BAME-this or trans-that. I mean the real ones, where neighbours of every kind look out for one another, share a sense of home, and show it by their actions.

Modernity does little to nurture communities, more often leaving the fabric of neighbourliness in tatters. Attempts to preserve or renew a communitarian culture come and go, most invariably ending in failure. Money is thrown at the problem. However, ultimately idealists perhaps pay the highest price, in disillusionment. Two such idealists are Jan and Mike Davis.

Where London meets Essex, on the Havering council estate where they’ve lived for 30 years, the Davises run the Petra Tenant Management Organisation (TMO). TMOs give social housing tenants and leaseholders a chance to take on responsibility for managing their own estates. A TMO enters into a legal agreement with its landlord and is paid annual management and maintenance allowances in order to carry out its duties. Grassroots democracy begins here.

The Davises have been at the helm since Petra’s inception in 2003, taking it in turns to be chair, steering a small staff team and variably attentive committee through the day-to-day challenges of managing an estate of 150 households.

An elderly couple, old school ex-Labour councillors and divorcees both, they met in the chamber of Havering Council. Community activists to their bones, these comrades became soulmates, and their thoughts turned to making a home together. Naturally for the Davises this home-making extended beyond their own cosy flat to the Parkhill Estate as a whole.

Some may be unaware of the fact, but Parkhill residents have benefited greatly from the Davises commitment to community. It’s no coincidence the estate and its grounds are among the best maintained and least crime-affected in the borough, with many former tenants taking the opportunity to become leaseholders.

But now in their 70s, fed up with the lack of support, and with health problems mounting, they have decided to retire. Properly this time, even perhaps moving away from the estate. Perfectly understandable decisions these, of course, but there’s a problem. No one in the community appears remotely interested in, or capable of, filling their shoes.

If social reconciliation is the essential task of democratic politics for the next generation, how is it to be achieved when even a couple as capable and committed as the Davises cannot stir that civic spirit into life?

We can’t, as Bertolt Brecht once fantasized doing, dismiss the people and appoint new ones. We have to work with what we’ve got: an increasingly fragmented, poorly-informed, easily-distracted miscellany of ‘world citizens’ largely oblivious to history and what it took to achieve all that we have in this country.

We social democrats talk about a ‘values and virtues-led cultural renewal’ because we know how fundamental – how radical – the change needs to be. All must play their part, from grassroots to government, the latter reshaping our institutions and democratic structures to stimulate interest and effective participation from below.

Common-good constitutionalism would be a great place to start. It’s why the SDP supports electoral reform, the creation of an English parliament, the abolition of the House of Lords, and increased powers for local councils and backbench MPs.

But an even greater challenge is the one the SDP must tackle from here at base camp all the way through to that electoral Everest of a summit we intend to scale one day – that of successfully nesting common-good ideas in the hearts and minds of the British people.

The fate of the Parkhill Estate hangs in the balance. Will all that Jan and Mike have achieved over the years be lost, their former home becoming just another sink estate? Or will, at the eleventh hour, their example inspire others to step up, shoulder responsibility, and help themselves to a brighter, shared future?

Have your say...

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*

All Comments (6)

  • A really great blog post! The word community has been misappropriated for far too long. We as communitarians are instead preoccupied with how to achieve it’s true meaning- A group of individuals who place the ideal of the community at the heart of their actions. SDP is the only political contender bringing such important questions to the forefront of British politics.

    • So much sense spoken by the SDP on so many issues. The problem is hardly anyone knows the party exists. I might be out of order but the party needs to find a way to get greater exposure. A big backer with financial clout would be most welcome. So many people I see speak to echo the sentiments of the SDP but always say we need a new party to speak for us blissfully unaware that this party already exists.

  • Great article that emphasises how far the deterioration of civic responsibility has gone. The aim of the SDP must be to somehow counter the dominant idea of celebrity culture that all young people seem to aspire to.

  • I live in Havering and I have heard of there charitable activities I wish them well We need an alternative to the rotten Tories & Labour ineptness

  • Picking up on your “common good constitutionalism would be a great place to start. Its why the SDP support electoral reform”. The trouble is the electoral reform the SDP support doesn’t have a sense of purpose. It doesn’t show what it will achieve or how it will achieve it. It will not lead to common good ideas being nurtured.
    We should reform the House of Lords and not abolish it. We should turn it into an unelected revising chamber which represents all the institutions operating in our society. It cant be an elected chamber as democracy cant be doubled but it can be split.
    Wealth and power will always have its say. So if we create a conduit for their influence directly into the legislative process. They will spend less time, effort and money subverting the democratically elected House of Commons.
    Political parties should only be allowed to campaign and get elected to one tier of government. They must choose from local, national or UK Government. Party loyalty can affect all levels of government when prioritising the needs of their party ahead of their elected duties. There are many people either elected or who want to be elected as a councillor who campaign intensively during a General Election, not to get elected themselves but to establish or consolidate their position in the local party. This is one way in which established parties prevent smaller parties and independent candidates from gaining a foot hold in Westminster. Thus insuring that British politics continues to stagnate.
    We need to reduce the impact that national campaigns have in a General Election. We need to force the integration of the national campaign into the local campaigns and not vice versa. The national campaigns should not have their own expense allowance. Each constituency should still have its own expense allowance plus an additional allowance that it can spend on the national campaign. When the national campaign comes to that constituency and when that allowance is used in that constituency. This should prevent the established parties from using their safe seats to subsidise their campaigns in their target and marginal seats.
    Party political broadcasts should be ended as they further entrench the established parties. Broadcasters and publishers who cover the election shouldn’t just offer equal coverage; they should actively seek and enable equal coverage. This should be done a constituency level. So that when a national campaign rolls into a constituency the independent candidates get as much coverage as the national campaigns and their local candidate combined.

Family, Community, Nation.