As a lifelong Spurs supporter, I share both sentiments – but probably only because the raising of ECL to iconic media and almost mythical financial status, and the corresponding diminution of the Europa League, is a reality we cannot ignore. It is a reality, though, that I believe should be changed.

Firstly the ‘iconistic’ character of the ECL needs to be challenged. This is a competition whose Group Stages (with all due respect to the clubs mentioned) boasted clubs such as Plzen, Bate, Genk and Otelul, and from which ‘giants’ of the European game such as Apoel, Zenit, CSKA and Basel proceeded to R16. Europa League R32, on the other hand, includes major European clubs like Manchester United, Ajax, Porto, Valencia, Schalke and PSV. Tonight, ties such as Man Utd vs Ajax or Lazio vs. Athletico Madrid would certainly not look out of place in the later stages of ECL, and are surely as attractive as Lyon vs Apoel or Basel vs Bayern. And, indeed, our own relative European lightweights like Man City and Stoke should regard their ties against Porto and Valencia respectively as European ‘glory nights’.

A more balanced view of the relative brand merits of the two competitions should also lead to a more equitable distribution of financial rewards. For instance, for 2010/11 UEFA have reported the two ECL finalists (Barcelona and Manchester United) both received over €50m whilst the two Europa League finalists received €7.8m (Porto) and €4.5m (Braga) respectively. This is in the context of around €750m being distributed to the final 48 ECL participants and €150m to their Europa League counterparts (for more games required to win the competition). Naturally, this inequality will tend to reinforce a status quo pattern of European participation amongst leading clubs.

It seems to me there are various ways of ‘squaring this circle’. I have long argued that the prestige of the Europa League(and the seriousness with which English clubs take it) would be immensely increased if success in that competition enabled qualification to the early stages of ECL. For instance, it does not appear to me unreasonable or disproportionate for losing semi-finalists to gain a ECL 2^nd qualifying (Q2) round berth in the following season. The losing finalist would enter ECL at the Q3 stage, with the winner getting automatic entry to the ECL Group Stages Play-off (i.e. akin to the position the fourth placed English Premier League [EPL] team gets).

An even more ambitious variant would be for European completion as a whole to have an ECL, Europa League, National League hierarchy. Take the English position of four ECL berths. Each season the two poorest performing EPL teams in ECL would be ‘relegated’ to the Europa League, with the two best performing English teams in that competition being promoted. Similarly the poorest performing Europa League teams would be ‘relegated’ back to the national league – probably to be replaced by the highest EPL club with no European Football and the winner respectively of the FA Cup and League Cup (I accept this requires England to have one additional berth in the Europa League).

There are problems with this initial configuration – for instance, I do think the EPL Champions should always have a chance to participate in the ECL – but it is put up for discussion and debate. My fundamental point remains that there is a place for a strong respected Europa League in European soccer. If the balance between Europa League and ECL is evened out in both prestige, brand and financial terms, I expect improvement in all round football excellence will follow.

I am happy with the 2011/12 outcomes – especially the result in the San Siro last night! But, in future seasons, I would wish to see Spurs challenging for European honours at this stage of the season. If that challenge is at Europa League R32-level, we should know that this competition is worth winning, and does provide a further route back to the pinnacle of European soccer.

Elephant from an Essex Zoo…

After my Xmas piece in Regeneration and Renewal (‘Do they know its Xmas…’), with its reference to Mr Blobby as the generally acknowledged worst Xmas Number One of all time, you may begin to detect a recurring obsession with the title of this blog. However ‘Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate’ by George Lakoff (2004) provides a particularly appropriate and effective reference in a week when Eric Pickles is reported as asserting “Councillors have a moral duty (my emphasis) to sign up to [freezing council tax to] keep down the cost of living. Anything less is a kick in the teeth to hard-working, decent taxpayers”.

Lakoff argues that when one says ‘Don’t think of an elephant’, the listener automatically thinks of one. The conservative’s use of language frames the terms of policy debates in the directions they seek. The underpinning to their worldview is an ‘evil’ world in which laziness and lack of self-discipline needs to be shaped by an authoritarian ‘strict father’ dishing out rewards to the deserving and punishment to the undeserving.

Lakoff fears progressives’ failure to produce as compelling a narrative (of a mutually respecting, open, social worldview) to counter this conservative paradigm. With Balls and Miliband seemingly obsessed with recognising enduring ‘deficit reduction’ in the next parliament as key to their electoral credibility, Lakoff’s proposition has self-evident traction nationally, but what is the progressive response to Mr Blobby’s elephantine (in a clumsy, monstrous, ‘Lakoff-ian’ sense) pronouncements?

Response firstly needs to be shaped by a much more explicit recognition and exposure than hitherto of the fundamentally manipulative character of Pickles’ discourse. To take this weekend’s example, the use of the terms ‘moral duty’, ‘keep down cost’, ‘hard working decent taxpayer’, and (not agreeing with me is a) ‘kick in the teeth’ is an almost hysterical outburst of political warfare rather than a serious attempt to engage in deliberation over genuine choices in policy development. And the Minister has form in this regard.  Whether it is “I believe every household in England has a basic right (again my emphasis) to have their rubbish collected every week,”  or the more overtly negative ‘non-jobs of fat cat Chief Executives’, or the blaming of planners, the last Labour administration, benefit ‘scroungers’, regions etc for a variety of whatever failures he is currently charged with, local government has a Minister who consistently chooses propaganda over policy and insult over inquiry.

Second, there is the opportunity to exploit the weak position in terms of public opinion from which the Minister launches his destructive assaults. With the influential IPSOS-MORI Veracity Index showing public trust of politicians in general and Ministers in particular at levels of 14% and 17% respectively – the two lowest rankings of any profession, this is the time to develop joint narratives with Doctors (88%), Teachers (81%), ‘ordinary people (55%) and even public/civil servants (47%). With the local government sector showing record levels of negative net confidence in ‘Pickles and his Ministers’ (LGC net confidence survey 2011), this is a time to reinforce the imagery of remote Whitehall Ministers playing politics and propaganda whilst hard working professionals are undermined and ordinary people’s services are cut.

Finally there is the construction of the positive progressive narrative of localism – pride in our area, celebration of our communities, and the potential of collective control in shaping our destiny. Of course the narrative will and should vary from place to place. It does require the emergence of a leadership team of all the talents – political, public, private, and community sectors – communicating well and interactively with all our publics, including the media. And it does require channels of dialogue with central government that outflanks the admittedly significant blockage provided by the current Minister – getting the elephant out of the room!

There are those who started 2012 seeking to draw a line under the dysfunctional relationship with Pickles and his department to attempt to build a new more purposeful and constructive dialogue. Sadly, with his contrived ‘moral outrage’ Mr. B. has opted for ‘same old, same old’. So when you next think of the local government minister, don’t think of an elephant….don’t think of shallow political propaganda, of playing petty games in Westminster that deliberately undermines honest active citizens trying to build vibrant communities.  Think of civic pride, and developing local teams collaborating for a better future. And provide the narrative to the media and our publics that makes quite clear the juxtaposition of the two opposing worldviews.

It is difficult, though, to find much else to celebrate about 2011… although, as befits a year ending in ‘one’, it has accommodated a number of noteworthy anniversaries.

My last blog – posted much too long ago – celebrated thirty years of Belize Independence and the influence of its ‘founding father’ – George Price who died in September. This was a positive blog about political leaders shaping persuasive coherent narratives, whilst living humble selfless lives. Unfortunately, though, 2011 has also brought other anniversaries that have resonated more with the mood of economic gloom, public austerity, and inchoate political stewardship that has characterised much of the year.

Joseph Heller’s ‘Catch-22’ was fifty years old during 2011. Catch-22 describes the logical paradox facing the novel’s ‘anti-hero’ – a USAF bomber pilot. Captain Yossarian wishes to be grounded from combat missions on the basis that he is insane – because it is clearly insane to choose to fly missions that can result in almost certain death. However, if he requests being removed from this ‘insanity’, he must be sane, and therefore ‘fit to fly’.

Similarly, the ‘Catch-22s’ of government’s economic policy have been exposed so repeatedly this year, they have almost become its hallmark. In Cameron/Osborne’s terms, the priority is to eliminate (their definition of) the structural deficit. This requires cutting government expenditure and stimulating economic growth. But stimulating economic growth requires government spending, thus increasing the deficit. This Catch-22 creates a vicious circle that is the precise opposite of the avowed intention.

The Coalition struggles with Catch-22’s across all their major policy themes – localism, rebalancing, low carbon development, big society, open for business…Leadership is about reconciling these conundrums in a broadly consistent and compelling narrative that followers can understand and then enthusiastically embrace. That Cameron and Clegg cannot achieve this is a consequence of the coalition’s biggest Catch-22. The only reason (post the May referendum fiasco) for the LibDems to be in the coalition is if they markedly differentiate themselves from the Tories; but in pursuing that differentiation they expose the lack of a Coalition narrative and their powerlessness within it!

The sad passing of Ken Russell in November threw the spotlight back on one of his masterpieces – The Devils – which was released forty years ago in 1971. Still as strikingly original and shocking today as it was then, the film has stimulated many interpretations and widely differing opinion. Interestingly, my most vivid recollection of seeing the film in the cinema as a teenager is not of the nuns’ orgies, masturbation or even the horrific burning of Grandier at the stake. Rather, it is of the destruction of the pristine walls of Loudun that had kept the city safe from a capricious and cynical state, to reveal the charred, barren national landscape interspersed with the crucified corpses of those crushed under imperial power.

Even as a teenager, my enthusiasm for strong city governance and leadership appears to have been acute!

On the face of it Government’s launch of new ‘City Deals’ in December appears to share this enthusiasm. I shall write in more detail on this early in 2012 in my Regeneration and Renewal blog. In summary, though, much of the ‘deal’ is a statement of intent rather than a clear offer, and much of the intent also seems available to any ambitious area that can get its act together in terms of leadership and delivery management.

2012 will be a much better year than 2011 if city leadership teams swiftly and vigorously test government’s commitment to ‘new city deals’. The Devils, however, provides a salutary warning. The King enters the city in disguise (as Clegg/Clark?) carrying an instrument (new deal?) that he claims will exorcise the nuns of the devils possessing them.  The instrument and the exorcism are later revealed as a sham and the state swallows up independent city governance anyway.

Both The Devils and Catch-22 are wonderful pieces of work that I hold very dear. They can be ‘read’ in many different ways and at many different levels. It is almost demeaning to interpret them as parables for UK 2011, but it is immensely part of their power that they have a relevance and resonance to the ‘devils’ and ‘catch-22s’ with which we have struggled in this year now drawing to a close.

I shall still love both pieces in 2012, but our challenge will be to find new and more positive parables for the year we are about to enter. And so, on that more optimistic note…’happy new year’ and all the best for 2012 to readers of this blog…

The first Prime Minister I worked for was the Right Honourable George Price. Mr Price was Premier of Belize during the twenty years leading to independence, and then Belize’s first post-independence Prime Minister from 1981-84. He died, aged 92, last week. Widely recognised as the ‘founding father’ of the nation, it is somehow appropriate that he passed away on the cusp of the 30^th anniversary of Belize’s independence (on September 21^st). As I attended a 30^th anniversary party being given by Belizean friends in the UK, more than one of my (all too many) ‘toasts’ that evening were quietly in appreciation of his memory.

On reflection, Mr Price illustrates for me two fundamental dimensions of leadership that are as important today as they were in the 1980s – leaders as ‘keeper of the narrative’; and the importance of leaders as role models, leading by personal example.

George Price’s recognition as ‘father of the nation’ is not, I would argue, based on the constitutional progress he achieved from colony to independence during the 1960s-1980s. Arguably, given Britain’s wish to divest itself of colonial responsibilities, and the prevailing international climate, there was a certain inevitability to that process.

What Mr Price crafted, though, was a coherent and compelling ‘story’ of Belize rooted in a positive and progressive interpretation of the nation’s reality. Mr Price’s narrative envisioned Belize as a small nation that could bring together its diverse populations – Creole, Mestizo, Mayan, Garifuna and many others – into a cohesive whole; as a bridge between Caribbean and Central American regions, between North and Latin American communities; showcasing a politics that reconciled a dominant (in that hemisphere and era) free market US with social democratic and more radical philosophies. It was always difficult to label Mr Price politically, particularly for a UK commentator, but I suppose he encapsulated something of a radical Christian democrat approach (if such exists and is not an oxymoron!).

This narrative was immensely important in nation-building – whether articulated openly or providing a subliminal foundation for Belize policies and practice. It was and is distinctive, inclusive, and relevant for decision-making and implementation.

The shaping and realisation of a ‘strategic narrative’ is surely one of the principle roles and responsibilities of leaders today – whether of nations, cities and regions, or in fact any organisation. The presence of a leadership team that can articulate distinctive strategic goals, which can engender inclusive buy-in (internally and externally) to the direction of travel, and which uses the strategy coherently and consistently for decision-taking, provides a clear determinant and signifier of future successful places and organisations.

I learnt the ‘keeper of the narrative’ lesson over many subsequent years, although in retrospect I can see that George Price was a master of this quality. My more immediate impression of Mr Price, though, was his selflessness. Although head of government for over twenty years, he lived in a small one-bedroom house in Belmopan – the capital of Belize. He dressed smartly but simply, appeared to accumulate no ostentatious wealth, and had no obvious business interests. Although part of a large family, Mr Price had no partner and children of his own. Without fail, interests of state were laid to one side at least one morning every week for his regular public surgeries. All Belizeans could bring him any issue, without fear or favour, that he would listen to intently and attempt to deal with respectfully – whatever the merits of the case.

This single-minded dedication to Belize, accessible to all its citizens, and the lack of interest in personal wealth, distinguished George Price from most of his contemporaries. It is not something we habitually observe in powerful leaders (whether political or business) today. I tend to think that, were our public leaders more able to project a variant of the George Price role model in this respect, they would be much better able to persuade us to embrace and pursue their (and our) public and community ambitions.

Of course, George Price was not perfect, and the Belize story has had both positives and setbacks over the 30 years of independence. However, this is not the topic of this blog.

A cousin of mine recently reflected at his 70^thbirthday party, ‘what legacy does a man leave if he leaves no children?’  At Belize’s 30^th anniversary of independence, Mr Price’s legacy is evident for all to see and celebrate. In that sense, he had many children. And his legacy was much more far-reaching than he appreciated – stretching even to teaching a then young economist something of the meaning of public service, and of the qualities needed by Leaders who want develop and deliver change successfully.

All of these assertions may be correct, although the article’s evidence supporting them is both slight and contestable. These risks are also potentially manageable through other regional economic geography interventions to couple ‘northern’ core cities more closely with London’s economic success; and areas like Stoke and Coventry more closely with their core city region(s).

My two major observations with HSR2, though, are as follows. Firstly, for the coalition (through Hammond, the Transport Secretary) to claim HSR2 as a “fast track” to prosperity when the earliest it will reach Birmingham is 2026, with Leeds and Manchester to follow in 2032, appears an extraordinary abdication of regional economic policy if they genuinely believe in the investment.

My second point is that, as a regional economic intervention, HSR2 might have quite different qualitative impacts on Birmingham and the West Midlands on the one hand; and the Manchester/Leeds Trans-Pennine Corridor on the other. I have commented recently on long-run concerns over Birmingham’s current performance and future roles and functions in the UK economy (Back to the Future – Birmingham 2010). If HSR2 can reduce London-Birmingham journey times from typically 1¼ – 1½ hours to around 1 hour (and, say, halve the current 2½ hour journey including at least one train change to Heathrow) , the UKs ‘golden triangle’ (London-Oxford-Cambridge) could genuinely become a quadrilateral with Birmingham as the ‘Greater South East’s northern anchor.

Manchester and Leeds are more clearly leading a ‘north’ that will remain quite distinctive and separate from the London mega-region for the foreseeable future. Surely the north’s transport investment priorities are not to reduce travelling time to the capital to that currently ‘enjoyed’ by Birmingham; but to deliver an economic coherence and cohesion that is hugely problematic with the ridiculously slow travel times delivered by ‘Trans-Pennine Express’? To take almost an hour for the 43 miles from Manchester to Leeds; and three hours (normally involving changes) for the 125 miles from Liverpool to Hull hardly befits an economic geography that aspires to be at the forefront of modern European developments.

Acceleration of a London-Birmingham HSR2; together with step-change in connectivity east-west along the Trans-Pennine corridor seems intuitively a sensible strategic debate to be had on ‘rebalancing’ regional economic geographies in England through transport investment. Having such a debate, however, requires both The Economist, and more importantly Government, to take regional economic geography much more seriously than hitherto.

Despite the abolition of regions by the current government, I have never really got over a tendency, when I was Chief Executive of the East of England Regional Development Agency (EEDA), of looking at the Premiership in regional terms. So, during my last whole season at EEDA (2007/08), the EPL comprised seven clubs from the North West, five from London, three from the north-east, two each from West Midlands and South East, and one from the East Midlands. The domination of the North West and London absolutely matched their domination of RDA funding – these regions having the two best-funded RDAs by some distance. In 2007/08, three regions had no Premiership clubs – my own (the East of England – matching our somewhat negligible RDA funding base), South West and, somewhat incongruously in RDA funding terms, Yorkshire and Humber.

In fact, in the five seasons commencing 2007/08, the North West has never had less than seven clubs (35% of the Premiership)and twice had 40% (Burnley and Blackpool being the two one season wonders); and London has always had five (with the swapping of West Ham with QPR this season being the only change in that period).

I can’t help feeling this regional domination is a little unhealthy – especially when North West and London have provided the top five every year – with only Aston Villa breaking into sixth place on three occasions.

The South West has had no Premiership clubs over this period; East Midlands has only had Derby County (relegated in 2007/08); East of England has had none until Norwich’s promotion last season; whilst Yorkshire and Humber have only had two seasons of Hull City to see for all their huge soccer traditions.

The Coalition government might argue the Premiership has embraced their priority of regional rebalancing. For 2010/11, they inherited the most regionally concentrated Premiership ever – with 18/20 clubs coming from the North West, London and West Midlands. Each of these regions had one club relegated at the end of the season (West Ham, Blackpool, Birmingham). New national/regional representatives from Wales (Swansea) and East of England (Norwich) are welcome replacements.

It may be, however, this regional rebalancing is superficial and transitory. If one looks at the last five season relegations as a percentage of a region’s Premiership cohort, North West and London have the lowest percentage of relegations (5% and 8% respectively) – whilst the four least well-represented regions (SE, Y&H, EM, EoE) are running at 34%,67% and two at 100%. Based on further analysis of this indicator, the clear favourites for relegation this season are (two of) the three newly-promoted clubs (QPR, Swansea, Norwich) and one of either WBA or Wolves.

Does government abolition of regions spell the end of my ‘regional economy of the Premiership’ and what economic geography might replace it? The prospect of a broadly-based alternative looks bleak. In terms, for instance, of Core Cities, 4/8 (Bristol, Leeds, Nottingham, Sheffield) have no Premiership team in their city regions. And, whilst the Premiership regional economy has been extremely skewed, compared to Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) it seems positively inclusive. In the first full season of 37 LEPs, 45% of the Premiership comes from just two – London and Manchester; and 27 LEPs (almost ¾) have no representative at all!

Last night (12^th July 2011) I was watching the CSI double episode where Grissom catches a serial killer; says goodbye to his team; and then departs for a new life in Costa Rica. Grissom’s strengths are his technical expertise and detailed understanding of what evidence is telling him. He is much less convincing on interpersonal relations and work/life balance – hence his need to travel thousands of miles to (presumably) finally find happiness with his love interest from several series back.

At its best, CSI’s technical mastery is impressive and watchable. With ‘Law and Order’, on the other hand, I generally find the ‘Order’ half of the programme formulaic and irritating. However, some of the moral complexities with which the legal team grapple are genuinely thought-provoking – often around public policy themes that are of real contemporary relevance.

A third series I enjoy is Silent Witness. In some ways, this contains elements of both CSI’s forensic detail and ‘Law and Order’s’ moral ambiguities. What really distinguishes it, though, is the personal commitment of the Pathologists to ensuring the story of their ‘Silent Witnesses’ is heard, and in how this involvement shapes them as individuals.

Technical mastery, understanding evidence, recognising ambiguities that means there is not always a ‘right answer’, and being shaped personally by the issues we are seeking to resolve – these are certainly part of a leadership agenda for the future; as is finding inspiration and insight in the most unexpected of places…

Although there were changes at the margin, the bulk of Labour’s expenditure focused on tackling deficiencies in basic core services – partly because of decades of underinvestment and poor performance. Therefore, in the main, additional education expenditure produced new schools, better paid teachers, and stronger performance management rather than radical innovative changes in approach. Producer interests resisted radical reconfigurations. Citizens were resistant to co-payment in the state sector; and so, after the introduction of university tuition fees, government did not take this battle on for a significant service again.

With the current government, public austerity tends to prevent introduction of new services; producer interests remain very strong(witness BMA and NHS reforms); and, on major copayment, government may again be bruised by fighting the (same if much more severe) tuition fee battle.

On this analysis, fundamental PSR remains elusive and changes marginal. This is a valuable perspective and a ‘reality check’, in a period when most commentators are accentuating the radical character, profound impact, and dramatic break with the past of Coalition policies. It also provides explanations of the Coalition’s U-turns as they appear to drift back to incrementalism.

However, Adonis’s potentially fatal flaw is the ‘better for more’/’better for less’ counterpoint. A more orthodox argument would contrast Labour’s ‘better for more’ with a Coalition’s ‘LESS for less’ approach. On this basis, major services are being radically reduced (e.g. welfare reform) and/or replaced (e.g. affordable housing regime); with copayment either increased under a Big Society smokescreen or services being removed completely from communities with low social capital and/or ability to pay.

‘Less for less’ is predominantly a deficit reduction phenomenon, where the driver of change is almost totally financial, and NOT a coherent approach to PSR at all – hence the repeated delays in the Coalition’s PSR White Paper announced at the October 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR).

One can be much more positive than Adonis about the PSR impact of ‘better for more’ on new services (e.g. ‘Surestart’/Nursery Provision); the much-needed reinvestment in Education, Health and infrastructure; and even the attempts towards the end of their tenure to wrap this up in a coherent approach to ‘Total Place’. As the financial consequences of CSR begin to be played out; and in the absence of a coherent approach to PSR, this feels very different to ‘less for less’.

Firstly, the Thameslink decision was actually announced on June 16^th. Bombardier has made it quite clear that the job losses would have most likely proceeded even if they had been awarded the contract. The relationship between the Thameslink and Bombardier decisions are, therefore, neither straightforward nor direct.

Second, the UK/German argument is also stretched. Siemens is headquartered in Munich; but it has been established in the UK for over 100 years; employs over 16000 people here; and is making major UK investments in a range of new technologies that will support a strong future UK manufacturing footprint (e.g. Offshore Renewables in Humberside; gas turbines and a University School of Engineering in Lincoln; and a major ‘pavilion’ at the Royal Docks Enterprise Zone in London).

Bombardier is Canadian owned, headquartered in Montreal, with around 6000 UK jobs in the rail sector (and a further 5000 in aerospace). Its (rail) transportation business is actually operated out of Berlin, and it collaborates closely with Siemens in the sector – recently (May 2011) announcing a €multi-billion framework agreement with them to supply 130 trains for the German rail system.

High value manufacturing is very much a global market. Siemens and Bombardier are major players operating globally in competition and collaboration; they both have significant UK footprints that are crucial to our future manufacturing success.

Finally, is the EU process biased against ‘British’ firms, and might government have intervened either at the specification phase in 2008 (as the Coalition have implicitly criticised Labour) or over the current decision (as Labour has criticised the coalition) to ensure a better outcome for UK manufacturing? Again the answer is far from clear. If UK trains can only be manufactured in the UK, then Bombardier’s Derby plant is well-placed. However, presumably, this monopoly would not necessarily be good for the UK train user; and might well spark a retaliatory exclusion of UK manufacturers from a range of much larger EU transportation markets.

Derby(shire) remains at the heart of UK transport engineering post-today’s announcement – Rolls Royce, Bombardier, and Toyota being amongst key global manufacturers based there. There will be future UK (and EU) rail (and aerospace) procurements that Bombardier will seek to bid for from its UK operations (including Crossrail). Siemens is also a prominent part of a positive UK manufacturing future.

Nevertheless, today is not a good day for UK manufacturing, and especially not for Derby. Nor, however, is it irrevocably a disaster. With a well-founded approach to advanced manufacturing and engineering growth, the UK and Derby can face the future with optimism and resilience. Whether we do have such a well-founded approach, though, is a topic to which we need to return.

Beyond the intrinsic qualities of the performance, however, two specific lessons appeared to be relevant to a development professional (I really must switch off more!).

First, although each event is clearly locally-owned and rooted in community traditions and culture, the ‘global’ reference points of the performances are striking and prominent. The LIC parade draws on Caribbean traditions, but included Samba, Asian and English folk traditions amongst the floats, performing visitors from Aalborg, Denmark, and from the Ghana UK community. In Alicante, beyond traditional Spanish music and effigies, street sculptures and marches included Latin American, Far East and even Disney influences. Finally, the Rutland performance piece tells the story of the Rutland Ospreys; their symbolism for local communities’ relationship to Rutland Water; but also their journeys to Senegal and Asturias on life cycle migrations.

The much-remarked globalisation of economic development is mirrored in community arts. This evident willingness of local communities to embrace globalism in their arts and culture has significant implications for continued public support for an inclusive community arts sector.

My second observation is, yet again, the absolutely crucial role of a progressive public sector in all these events. Yes there is voluntary participation, and private sector involvement (including the strong commitment of Anglian Water to the Rutland event), but none of these events would occur without public sector funding from multiple agencies; service activity to make the events safe, accessible, and to ensure the logistics run smoothly.

It is not a new refrain, but government still has difficulty reconciling ‘Big Society’ conceptually, with the dynamic confident and locally-accountable public sector required to animate, support and enable community action and outcomes.

Although each event I attended was unique, drawing on very differing community and arts traditions, each was enjoyable and special. The three also illustrate the major shortcoming of a government whose mantras are driven by short-term deficit reduction first and long-term social and economic development second.  You build neither globally competitive local economies nor cohesive communities by undermining the public platforms on which social and economic change is founded.