In response to the Bevan Foundation’s ‘Goodbye Communities First?’ blog

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. ashmancj says:

    The fact that this debate, valuable and embryonic as it is, – is taking place in these spaces is a disgraceful indictment of the way certain orgs (guess who) go about their business in Wales – no doubt the best that can be hoped for is some form of prejudged consultation about the future that puts all that is good on warning and kneecaps any effort to grow and sustain some form of locally focused alternative. The future as touched on here needs to be outlined in a much more public space that garners the bottom up future, harnessing the best of local social enterprise with a progressive, public, private and third sector governance model at a level , not much bigger than clusters, that can be evidenced and measured in a meaningful way by local people

    • Diolch for the comment Chris.

      You make several interesting points, but one which I think is worth pointing out is that about cluster size. Although the clusters vary in size they feel ‘about right’, certainly in a Wales context which is, let’s be honest, largely a non-urban country. This may not be a popular opinion but there is risk that an emphasis on ‘community-led’ leads to a proliferation (and indulgence?) of units that are too small and parochial to affect change. In CF terms we’d be returning to the patchwork of areas of old and between which learning was shared even worse than it is now

      • ashmancj says:

        Totally agree on the footprint and population size generally consistent with clusters – as prev discussed the 25-30k population is right enabling efficiency and customisation in terms of key service provision.It can also still be “felt” and seen/measured even it goes a bit beyond immediate identity/geography – between us Peter, Victoria, DTA? and?? we can make this landscape happen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

8 + four =