In Third Sector Foresight our eyes are always peeled, scanning the horizon for events that may impact the sector for good or ill (or, as is often the case, events that will benefit some parts of the sector, or those that are prepared for them, and disadvantage other parts of the sector, or those that aren’t prepared).
On 13 November NCVO hosts its Autumn conference in Manchester: ‘Looking to the election and beyond’, where I’ll be co-facilitating the booked-out workshop ‘Looking out and thinking ahead’. That same day, dystopian blockbuster ‘2012’ hits cinema screens. Based on the idea that the end of the Mayan calendar means the end of the world (rather than the more plausible possibility that the Mayans just realised no-one was inviting them to things five centuries hence) the film’s strapline - ‘who will survive?’ – will resonate with charities planning for the 2011-2012 financial year.
This diagram from The Guardian and the Institute of Fiscal Studies shows current public spending. It makes clear (like you need reminding) that whichever party or alliance of parties holds power after the 2010 General election, with the bank bailout (the orange bubble in the top right) equal in size to the cost of the NHS (the pale blue bubble in the bottom right), government spending will be cut. Which bring us to what I’ve named (following UK date conventions) ‘3/11’.
March 2011 will be the end of the 2010-2011 financial year, when some charities fear their own Day the World Changed as the new government (of whatever hue) starts its first post-election financial year, pulls in its horns, and cuts grants and contracts to deliver services.
Fortunately, here in Foresight we are always looking ahead. We've monitored what the election and a possible Conservative government might mean for civil society. We've examined their focus on social justice, as well as cross-party trends on rights and responsibilities and attitudes towards the welfare state, which will influence cuts by any government. And in studying the recent Conservative and Labour party conferences we've tried to push your thinking beyond the short term, drawing out the possible implications for your organisation, and helping you to work out how to survive 3/11.
The Totnes experiment also raises other questions for civil society.
If the South Hams area is a safe Conservative constituency, could the selection of GP Sarah Wollaston as Tory candidate in this US-style 'primary' be said to have effectively replaced the likely 2010 general election? Yet Dr Wollaston was interviewed on Newsnight saying that she was given just £200 to spend on her ‘primary’ campaign, and had no time to canvas support, and little apparent inclination for it.
Will we see more of this in other constituencies?
If one party has a strong majority in a constituency, will such 'primaries' short-circuit the electoral process? Will they reduce the space for civil society to lobby candidates when they are at their most receptive (in the drawn-out run up to an election)?
Or will it enliven participation and build community cohesion by giving all those people who vote Labour in Tory heartlands (or vice versa) a feeling that their voice still counts?
Will we see a new sort of tactical voting? Lib Dem and Labour activists in Totnes were quick to spot that if their supporters voted for the weakest Tory candidate in this 'primary', even if that candidate romped home in the next General Election, the opposition parties would have an easier time of it for the next four years and be in a stronger position at the General Election after next!
Will that sort of tactical voting actually drive down the ability of elected MPs - with big implications for campaigning and lobbying?
Pritesh makes a good point. The ideal balance between online and offline interaction with your users/supporters/members of course depends on who they are, what you want to do with them, and what you want them to do for you.
Campaigning is one area where there is hot debate about how to translate online clicks into people at a demonstration, or vice versa, and whether this is even important. Click here to see the discussion elsewhere on this site.
Fundraising is another field where the so-called ‘digital divide’ might increasingly matter to you. The web can make it easy for people to find you, but there’s a lot of competition for their attention online, and it’s also easy for them to click away from you. And if you find that you are interacting with completely different groups of people online and offline, will one medium prove better than the other for turning interested passers-by into committed donors? For more on the future of individual giving click here. For the future of IT and fundraising click here.
As for stimulating debate, The New Economics Foundation are an interesting case study of an organisation that uses its website to impart information, but still runs lots of face to face events – now including the quarterly Fink Club. In a spoof of Brad Pitt’s Fight Club in the film of the same name, rules include: “If it’s your first time at Fink Club, you have to Fink”. Fun, sparky, face to face debate – but promoted online!
Nick
In Third Sector Foresight our eyes are always peeled, scanning the horizon for events that may impact the sector for good or ill (or, as is often the case, events that will benefit some parts of the sector, or those that are prepared for them, and disadvantage other parts of the sector, or those that aren’t prepared).
On 13 November NCVO hosts its Autumn conference in Manchester: ‘Looking to the election and beyond’, where I’ll be co-facilitating the booked-out workshop ‘Looking out and thinking ahead’. That same day, dystopian blockbuster ‘2012’ hits cinema screens. Based on the idea that the end of the Mayan calendar means the end of the world (rather than the more plausible possibility that the Mayans just realised no-one was inviting them to things five centuries hence) the film’s strapline - ‘who will survive?’ – will resonate with charities planning for the 2011-2012 financial year.
This diagram from The Guardian and the Institute of Fiscal Studies shows current public spending. It makes clear (like you need reminding) that whichever party or alliance of parties holds power after the 2010 General election, with the bank bailout (the orange bubble in the top right) equal in size to the cost of the NHS (the pale blue bubble in the bottom right), government spending will be cut. Which bring us to what I’ve named (following UK date conventions) ‘3/11’.
March 2011 will be the end of the 2010-2011 financial year, when some charities fear their own Day the World Changed as the new government (of whatever hue) starts its first post-election financial year, pulls in its horns, and cuts grants and contracts to deliver services.
Fortunately, here in Foresight we are always looking ahead. We've monitored what the election and a possible Conservative government might mean for civil society. We've examined their focus on social justice, as well as cross-party trends on rights and responsibilities and attitudes towards the welfare state, which will influence cuts by any government. And in studying the recent Conservative and Labour party conferences we've tried to push your thinking beyond the short term, drawing out the possible implications for your organisation, and helping you to work out how to survive 3/11.
Nick
The Totnes experiment also raises other questions for civil society.
If the South Hams area is a safe Conservative constituency, could the selection of GP Sarah Wollaston as Tory candidate in this US-style 'primary' be said to have effectively replaced the likely 2010 general election? Yet Dr Wollaston was interviewed on Newsnight saying that she was given just £200 to spend on her ‘primary’ campaign, and had no time to canvas support, and little apparent inclination for it.
Will we see more of this in other constituencies?
If one party has a strong majority in a constituency, will such 'primaries' short-circuit the electoral process? Will they reduce the space for civil society to lobby candidates when they are at their most receptive (in the drawn-out run up to an election)?
Or will it enliven participation and build community cohesion by giving all those people who vote Labour in Tory heartlands (or vice versa) a feeling that their voice still counts?
Will we see a new sort of tactical voting? Lib Dem and Labour activists in Totnes were quick to spot that if their supporters voted for the weakest Tory candidate in this 'primary', even if that candidate romped home in the next General Election, the opposition parties would have an easier time of it for the next four years and be in a stronger position at the General Election after next!
Will that sort of tactical voting actually drive down the ability of elected MPs - with big implications for campaigning and lobbying?
Nick
Pritesh makes a good point. The ideal balance between online and offline interaction with your users/supporters/members of course depends on who they are, what you want to do with them, and what you want them to do for you.
Campaigning is one area where there is hot debate about how to translate online clicks into people at a demonstration, or vice versa, and whether this is even important. Click here to see the discussion elsewhere on this site.
Fundraising is another field where the so-called ‘digital divide’ might increasingly matter to you. The web can make it easy for people to find you, but there’s a lot of competition for their attention online, and it’s also easy for them to click away from you. And if you find that you are interacting with completely different groups of people online and offline, will one medium prove better than the other for turning interested passers-by into committed donors? For more on the future of individual giving click here. For the future of IT and fundraising click here.
As for stimulating debate, The New Economics Foundation are an interesting case study of an organisation that uses its website to impart information, but still runs lots of face to face events – now including the quarterly Fink Club. In a spoof of Brad Pitt’s Fight Club in the film of the same name, rules include: “If it’s your first time at Fink Club, you have to Fink”. Fun, sparky, face to face debate – but promoted online!