Degrees of separation as an outcomes framework for a city..?

I've been musing on the results factory for disrupting poverty in leeds -(very sad i wasn't able to attend) and i've been thinking that we have complete disconnect between leadership & citizen. Probably no worse than ever before in history, but probably for the first time we have the opportunity to do something about it. 

Here's a extract from birmingham's commitment via infrastructure organisation to have no more than 3 steps between leaders and any citizen. Apologies its so long..

• A relatively small group of people – perhaps 500 in total – are directly involved in making strategic decisions about the future of the city and its people.  They include: the Leader of the City Council and their Cabinet, the Council’s chief executive and its chief officers; the Chief Constable, the NHS Primary Care Trusts, owners and chief executives of major businesses leaders of faith groups and large non-profit organisations including, for example, housing associations. The decisions these people take affect the city as a whole.  They are ‘in power’.

• A wider group of people – perhaps a few thousand – have regular links with people in power: they are ‘one step from power’.  They include people with significant executive power of their own: people whose decisions determine how schools and colleges are run or the streets of neighbourhoods are policed etc.  They also include people who have some influence over people in power: elected councillors and MPs, some people in the media, people who serve on boards and committees. More of the people in power are men, very few are under 30 years old and they are disproportionately white.  Their friends and associates may be the same.

• An even larger group of people in Birmingham either know the people in the group above or have some position which brings them into official contact with them regularly.  They include a large number of people employed in public services and business managers, trade union officials, members of political parties and some ‘active citizens’ – people who lead neighbourhood forums or resident groups or who organise community self-help.  Probably between ten and fifty thousand people in Birmingham are ‘two steps from power’. 

• The majority of citizens are ‘three steps from power’.  That is: they are employed in a job that involves some level of responsibility; or are members of a church or other faith group or a social or sports club; they may be members of a community group or a voluntary organisation.  Most vote in local elections and to some extent they keep in touch with what is going on in local society.  They will turn up to a public meeting if the issue directly affects them and might sign a petition or write an email.  If they need to, they have ways of making their voice heard in decisions that they feel affect them.

• There is a large minority – possibly as many as a quarter of a million people in Birmingham – who are excluded: there are more than three degrees of separation between them and the people making the decisions affecting them. 

The birmingham lot go on to talk about their solutions (unsurprisingly about civil society and inparticular the role of infrastructure services), but i like the idea and i think its a good framework for looking at the role of decision makers and citizens..

Any idea how we could use it as an alternative measure of progress of a city..? would we get different decisions if the powerful were closer to the powerless, and is this something to work towards..?

The future of Leeds Enterprise Accelerator (#elsie)

Mike Chitty has just done an extremely thorough SWOT to anyone involved in #elsie. I tried to add my thoughts directly, but i think it might be easier to do it here..

(to clarify - elsie is a volunteer panel who want to help anything entrepreneurial in leeds start - community projects, businesses, ideas of any kind..! )

1. Starting anything is difficult. 
2. Mike needs more support in carrying the project (as well as administration).
3. It might be easier to get project leaders directly, but similarly might undermine the ability of elsie to be a driver for change. 
4. Referrals from the typical voluntary sector have been slow? - particularly without the explicit backing of existing third sector infrastructure. (This is both a problem and an opportunity)
5. It might be easier if all those involved felt part of a group and a paid sessional coach might help this (yet without losing the feeling that its run by volunteers).
6. How can we get existing structures to do some of the groundwork (eg I've just started work for the national trust in yorkshire, and see the use of their 61,000 volunteers, world status as stately homes and countryside owners as a key opportunity to getting this kind of thing off the ground).
7. Anyone who cares about this stuff is busy. 
8. I am going to offer mike some of my time if he'll give me a defined role to support elsie..

The idea is great. Its up and running and has momentum.
So where do we want to take it..?

What will the Government actually do in 2050..?

MAYBE - by 2050:

1. Nation states will only exist to be parts of coalitions on the major global issues: climate change, terrorism, development aid etc.
2. National gov will solely be a mechanism for collecting taxes and passing them to local gov – an administrative task.
3. Local government will be the main interaction point for people (under the huge banner of localism)

This is even before we factor in devolution, the role of the EU and the decline of the western superpowers. 
If I was a politician I'd be looking for another job.

Why do i want to go work for the National Trust..?

The National Trust was founded in 1895 by 3 volunteers. It is the largest membership organisation in the UK. It owns or protects roughly one fifth of the coast in England.

The potential is enormous to use this platform for anything that people want to do. The architecture is already there, the staff and volunteers keep the doors and floors open.. So there are huge opportunities for people who want to take this further.. So what would people want to do? good question, no idea. But i'm very happy the NT are prepared to look at it.

1. At a time of changing role of membership (clubcard or political parties - take your pick) they have 4 million members, who pay and feel an ownership over what goes on. Huge opportunity to make them more involved and let them use the platform.
2. They are one of the largest UK charities by both income and assets. So while other social investment is plummeting, can add significant support to other voluntary groups through ethical procurement and joint working.
3. They have 61,000 volunteers. some of those will want to continue being room guides, walking guides and other things. But many others will want to do something different - a massive opportunity if we give them what they want. The potential to demonstrate values-led leisure, or social challenges, or genuinely beneficial corporate volunteering from such a platform was too good to pass up..

I'll be talking more in coming months about specific plans - a lot of it will depend on where other people want to go (property managers, volunteers, external agencies etc) but there are many excellent people already on board and i'm really excited about seeing what it going on. Yorkshire & the NE is a massive and brilliant area.
I think the best way to protect our institutions is to make them relevant to the future.

More to come......

Everything we have arround us has evolved, maybe it's time for revolution..?

Look around your home. Everything you see is basically the same as it was in the middle ages. Tables, washing up, clothes. I saw an 8,000 year old boat in Cyrus Even the refrigerator is the same principle just refined..

But right now we're having a fundamental rethink of the basic principles of almost everything, driven of course by technology. Why can't we have a shower that has the right amount of hotish water everytime? why don't appliances do what we want, first time, before asking? why does design all have to be new..? Why can't we have less dogmatic things..?

Everything we have around us has evolved since humans used things - maybe it's time for revolution in everyday things..?