The good news first

Firstly, yesterday saw some very good news for Brighton and Hove. The Green and Labour groups (and a few stragglers) managed to make some very serious amendments to the Conservative council’s budget. Not least we saw a reversal of the council’s proposal to reduce council tax by 1%, reduce parking permit fees by 5% and also scrapped a £1.1m plan to remove a cycle lane in Hove that was only introduced three years ago. That’s about £2.7m that stays in the budget. These various amendments squeaked through, because the council is very finely balanced even if Greens and Labour cooperate. That cross-party cooperation is cause for optimism.

Options and risks

Then the amended budget faced a vote last night. Labour abstained, Greens voted against. And as a result of Tory support it passed. The amended budget was preferable but still included serious Tory cuts, many of which I fear are inevitable in the current political climate.

Other options were available. Labour could have a voted against too and (most likely) defeated the whole budget including the good amendments. That would mean that next week, another budget council would sit and have to agree a budget all over again, starting from scratch. The Green argument is that we could cooperate again and get more of what we want. I agree that’s possible. But it’s risky. There’s no guarantee that Labour and Green groups could spend a week or so and find consensus again on a whole host of things. A week is a long time in politics. The arguments we’ve seen online since the vote show that our parties are still on the first date when it comes to forming an ongoing, trusting relationship.

There are other risks too. The Conservatives could have proposed a different budget next week. A worse budget. One which the opposition could spend time amending back into what we’ve got now at great effort. To West Wing fans, I’d call this “doing a Haffley”. Possible, but perhaps unlikely.

Risk 3. A deal could be struck. The council is finely balanced. Those canny Tories could call off the one Liberal and one independent councillor with some sort of inducement which would make the numbers very tight. They could also, conceivably, offer a deal to the Greens or Labour. The budget would be settled in those no longer smoke-filled rooms. Not ideal.

So, the way I see it, we could end up with a budget next week that’s “better” or pretty much the same as the one that passed yesterday. Or worse, you could end with a more debilitating budget or indeed no budget at all.

The real pickle

No budget at all? That’s when it becomes very serious. In such a situation, that nice Mr Pickles from the Communities department sends his civil servants down and they impose a budget upon the city. No votes. No amendments. No deals. And who knows what that would look like? Even the Greens recognised at their national conference last week that passing a budget is a council’s (and councillors’) legal responsibility.

Abstaining offered an imperfect solution. But it does strike me that it’s better to set a budget with these excellent amendments, than risk something worse. Not least, because this isn’t the end of the process. Roll on May and the city council elections. The voters willing, we’ll see a Green and Labour coalition in City Hall that can propose and pass an equitable budget without all the rather depressing process and party positioning that the current situation makes sadly inevitable. Also, and I do think we have to accept this fact, the Conservatives are currently the biggest group on the city council by far right now. They have, in a sense, the right to set the tone of the budget and they like cuts.

Future less imperfect

I appreciate why the Greens voted against and I also undertand why Labour abstained: but neither action offered a perfect solution. I agree with the pragmatists. A budget has to be set and it was. Energy spent in recrimination and blame would be better saved for campaigning to defeat as many Conservatives as possible at the ballot box in a few weeks time because until then we’re always trying to treat the symptoms rather than find a cure for the cause.

Disclosure: I am a member of the Labour party and a candidate for the city council elections in May for Regency ward. I was not privy to or part of Labour group discussions that led to the decisions they made.

photo credit: Elsie esq.

The scene reinforces the importance of humility in politics. Personal connections are important. And to go a bit ‘cluetrain’: politics is conversations.

That’s why I’m glad I took this snap last Saturday. Labour types had been out canvassing in Hanover for several hours and one activist had met some teachers who asked some probing questions and raised some prescient concerns on the doorstep.

A few streets away, Children’s Secretary Ed Balls was meeting other voters. Nancy Platts (Labour’s parliamentary candidate round these parts) heard about the teachers and suggested to Ed that he pop back to see them. He was game.

The rest of the doorknockers were ensconced in the pub for a well deserved pint by the time I took this picture. The Secretary of State spent about fifteen minutes talking to the teachers with Nancy as the sun started to set.

Sometimes real politics happens in the quiet moments.

Hi Derek,

Good luck with LabourList. It's a great experiment and I'm sure you're going to have fun with it. I've been a Labour party member since before I could vote. Now a blogger, social media consultant, freelance community/moderation manager and, in a previous life, Community Manager for eBay in the UK where managing the moderation and growth of a large (and sometimes cantankerous) community was my bread and butter.

Welcome to my world. You've got a background in media relations and experience as a psychotherapist and those are both damned useful. But you're not an internet type and (as far as I know) have never managed an online community. I have. Here are some words of advice:

Give up control now.
If for one moment you think you can control this thing you've started, give up. You're wrong. It has a life of its own already and you're barely days in. Of course, you can temper it and remove the obscene and offensive content but you will never suppress people with views you don't like. Don't even try. The best you can do is encourage positive contributions and amplify voices that resonate with LabourList's aims. You're not going to change a single made-up mind. Don't bother trying.

Loonies land first
Call them passionate or call them obsessed. Those with a well–rehearsed rant, long standing grievance, pet peeve or just plain bonkers agenda always turn up first (often because they've been turned away elsewhere or others tired of the same rubbish again and again have stopped listening). LabourList is just a new place they can vent. It's tempting to play tough and it's fun to spank them but actually it's best (always)… to ignore them. That drives them crazy. Smile and wave.

The host sets the tone
If you're combative, you'll get combative back. Studied politeness to all is the only way. Everyone might be ranting around you but never rant back. It's essential to be even-handed and fair no matter how hard you're being criticised or however rude or personal someone is being to you. Recognise and reward the sort of behaviour you want to see more of. For instance, thank people for constructive contributions. That can be in public or privately. A personal email of thanks from a cimmunity host, welcoming future dialogue works wonders. You've been getting snippy on some of the comments threads: it's hard to enforce a positive tone when the host isn't setting much of an example.

Keep on ignoring the trolls.
Just in case you've forgotten already. Maybe your patience is fraying. You want to retort. Don't. Keep on ignoring them. Do not feed the trolls.

The deft hand of moderation, moderates moderately
Moderation is time-consuming and therefore expensive. Newbie moderators tend to want perfection but it simply isn't possible. Prioritise. Swearing and obscenity are top priority, alongside threats and very anti-social behaviour. Delete and warn. Prevent repeat offenders from being able to post.

Moderation isn't a binary choice. It's not a case of either a free-for-all or not publishing anything until it's been approved. Report buttons that let the community participate are useful. Use filters to screen text that may need review by a human. Let people with a good past record through but approve comments from newbies. There are lots of options. If you sanction anyone, give them a clear reason and never discuss individual cases of moderation in public (if they go public on correspondence, consider any discussion closed).

They're not journalists, they're real people (even if they are wankers).
You can't be as brusque with community members as you might be with hacks. A journalist is doing a job, a community member is doing it for fun. Even wankers need to be treated respectfully. You don't need to point out when someone is making a stupid point, or make your case every time: it's usually abundantly clear. (The bloggerheads case is a good one: here's an example post.) We can make our own minds up about him.) It's very easy to rub someone up the wrong way and create an ongoing problem: a person with free time and a vendetta is an expensive indulgence in the long run. Try not to create too many. Ignoring people after they've had a fair hearing, explaining that there is nowhere for the discussion to go, is acceptable practice.

Never forget the Lurkers!
In any online community, there is a silent majority that matter much more than the minority who speak up. Look past the first few rows and play to the gallery. I reckon in a successful community, that for every commenter there are nine others reading. These people are the audience and keep them front and centre as you build LabourList rather than focussing on the ones shouting loudest. As you rightly say, you're building a site for 60 million people, draw them out if you can. Don't drive them away with intemperate treatment of whingers.

Keep on going, Comrade,

Dan Wilson

Tom Watson has been on my radar for a while as an example of an MP who has a great blog (one of my other favourites is the more anarchic Paul Flynn). His deft hosting of a comment thread about web content ratings was as good as I've seen from even experienced community managers (and that's meant as a compliment). But what was really classy was how he then compiled the thread into a report for the relevant minister. The more I think about having an MP and minister soliciting comment online and then feeding that through to the relevant decision-maker, the more brilliant I think it is. Plenty of politicians use the net as a 'broadcast' medium, so it's great to see an MP who is seeking collaboration and exchanges. Follow him on Twitter: he's ace.

It's unrealistic (and also unattractive) to expect every minister or MP to participate online but we need more like Tom Watson. What we get from him is authenticity. Webcameron, staged YouTube videos however informal and faux Facebook groups are all very well and a good step but we need more genuine, meaningful participation by the member/candidate/representative. Tom Watson is leading by example and the unofficial minister for geeks.