The Sheffield Fairness Commission

The Council have decided that Sheffield should be a fairer city. They have allocated £1m over 10 years to achieve the following:

Vision

We want Sheffield to become the fairest city in Britain. To do this many things will need to change – the culture of the city, those who work within it, those who make decisions for it, and most importantly everyone who lives here.

We have a bold vision of:a city that is eventually free from damaging disparities in living conditions and life chances, and free from stigmatising discrimination and prejudice, a place in which every citizen and community knows and feels that they will be treated fairly. We aspire to be the fairest city in the country.

Sheffield Fairness Framework

We have produced the following guidelines to help decision makers and citizens make Sheffield fairer:

1. Those in greatest need should take priority
   
2. Those with the most resources should make the biggest contributions.
   
3. The commitment to fairness must be for the long-term.
   
4. The commitment to fairness must be across the whole city.
   
5. Preventing inequalities is better than trying to cure them.
   
6. To be seen to act in a fair way as well as acting fairly.
   
7. Civic responsibility - all residents to contribute to making the city fairer and for all citizens to have a say in how the city works.
   
8. An open continuous campaign for fairness in the city.
   
9. Fairness must be a matter of balance between different groups, communities and generations in the city.
   
10. The city’s commitment to fairness must be both demonstrated and monitored in an annual report.
    

Report here

---------- Post added 30-01-2013 at 09:15 ----------

PS, there's a phone-in on BBC Radio Sheffield until 10am.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radiosheffield

Yet another complete waste of money by the council ,which is no surprise. What is shocking is that there is someone on the council who is paid to come up with rubbish like this, and they will probably be on a nice salary to.

Sorry, am I being thick or does anyone else not understand the three poll options?

In one sense it's meaningless drivel; but in another it appears to mean that resources (i.e. money) will be taken off those who have them and given to those who don't. Which in effect means the return of Labour's favoured areas policy because we all know which areas will be deemed the most needy: Burngreave, Pitsmoor, Manor etc. All those that have had millions of pounds thrown at them by previous Labour councils to little or no effect but which also happen to be full of Labour voters. Yeah, that's really fair.

All very laudable, but at a time when services are being cut and the council complaining there is no money, how can they find a spare £100,000 per year for the next ten years?

To answer my own question, when they can afford to pay 9 people over £100,000 per year, pay 391 people between £50,000 and £100,000 per year and pay consultants from £500 to £800 per day (to do the work that these 400 people would appear not to be capable of doing), it is easy to see why they should squander a bit more.

I've just skim read it.

Like any caring human being I find it impossible to disagree with most of the aspirations in this report; i.e. a safer city, better health for all citizens, good housing, quality jobs and "transport for all".

I'm even happy with the idea that those in most need should be prioritised, and those with most should contribute more (do they already?).

All well and good as far as it goes.

My beef is with the strategy that's hinted at to achieve these aims. They're all a bit namby-pamby a bit local council, a bit 6th form project.

For example the aspiration to provide access to high quality jobs for all. Lip service is paid to attracting more business, but how?

I came from a poor ethnic minority family in London. The only reason I'm doing reasonably well now is that London is stuffed full of opportunity for those who want to take it. I worked for a raft of blue chip organisations who were based there and am now very employable.

But I'm nothing special, it's just that there was a lot of lean mean private sector in the area where I lived.

The council on it's own can do little to create "high quality jobs". Especially in the current era of public sector squeeze. And even if that wasn't the case, most of the really good science, technology and other growth industries are private sector.

In my view the council needs to find a middle ground where implications of need-friendly strategies do not damage it's ability to attract big business.

Perhaps a really good way to help those at the lowest social strata is to go all out to attract/create commerce and industry. I mean that's what Sheffield is built on isn't it? Yes do the fairness & need thing at the same time, but the private sector dollar makes things happen.

I think that a thriving private economy underpinned by a fairness strategy would be the way forward. But to create that economy, the direction of some other strategies (e.g. transport) may need to be reconsidered

I know this will be anathema to some with firmly held political views, but I'm actually thinking of the people who have to get up to go crap, poorly paid or non-jobs (or who have no job at all) and who could do so much more.

I hope to see the "Encouraging The Private Sector in Sheffield" report on the website soon.

It come across like the "equal opportunities for one legged black lesbians" joke that was bandied at leftie councils of the 80s.

So is this politically correct nonsense going to make Sheffield a fairer city to the council workers thay have to lay off because they've squandered a million pounds on this joke.

And it will be the workers that go, because they'll never get rid of any of the managers or the paper clip enablement officers and the like.

Sack the numpties who came up with the idea, life would be much fairer.

Then re-employ them in a suitable position such as litter picking, as it seems they have too much free time on their hands.

Fair enough.

Born and bred English should always be given priority in social housing whether a foreign born person or family is/are needier or not. It is our city and our country and always will be.

In one sense it's meaningless drivel; but in another it appears to mean that resources (i.e. money) will be taken off those who have them and given to those who don't. Which in effect means the return of Labour's favoured areas policy because we all know which areas will be deemed the most needy: Burngreave, Pitsmoor, Manor etc. All those that have had millions of pounds thrown at them by previous Labour councils to little or no effect but which also happen to be full of Labour voters. Yeah, that's really fair.

That seems a fair summary.