What are the policies that we could implement to ensure that cultural and sporting institutions remain grounded in their local communities?

The moment of exultation when London was announced as the host city for the 2012 Olympic Games caught all of our imaginations, and united us in pride and joy. This now seems a distant memory in the face of an endless list of planning problems, budget controversy and funding criticism- not to mention the looming recession facing us. To many the idealism of the games is fast fading away, replaced by anger over the unnecessary burden that ‘the Government,’ ‘Lord Coe,’ ‘Ken Livingstone,’ or ‘others’ have imposed on us.

For the 2012 Olympic Games to become a success story, recapturing the imagination and support of the British people is vital. It is essential that we unite the shared ambitions of Londoners and sporting volunteers for the common cause.

The Peoples Games would be a membership based community group, uniting the shared ambitions of the key bid partners, the people of London and beyond. It could provide a platform for recruiting volunteers, fundraising, and helping to build support for the legacy developments resulting from the games.

Are there further ways the creation of a new body for the greater community can help engage the people in the process? What should the public be consulted on? What sorts of events would foster a two-way dialogue between the executive and our citizens to enhance mutual trust and transparency?

The aftermath of the Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand affair has led many to question how responsive the BBC is to members of the public.

The replacement of the board of governors with the BBC Trust early last year was the first step to increasing its credentials as the voice of the license payer. But does it go far enough? Numerous commentators have repeatedly highlighted the weak level of democratic accountability. With huge sums of public money being spent annually does the public really have enough of a say on the ‘how’ and ‘what’ in the delivery of services and programs?

Can the license system survive for another decade if the BBC continues to ignore consumers’ interests?

In our last years manifesto, we suggested that the Government should consider the conversion of the BBC to a mutual organisation owned and controlled by licence payers as well as the British government.

Do we still think that this is the case? How would this work and what would this model look like?

Through the collective ownership of shares in supporters’ trusts, and the pooling of individually held shares in a club under the influence of a trust, supporters’ trusts have given many football fans a real say in the manner in which their clubs are run.

While the idea of running football clubs as mutuals may seem slightly leftfield here, it is a much more mainstream model on the continent. The best example is Barcelona, one of the most pre-eminent names in world football, yet owned by its members and controlled on a one-member one-vote basis.

So far over 150 trusts have been established, which have brought around £10M of investment into the game, a significant return on the original £750,000 government investment into Supporters Direct. Moreover, the very presence of these organisations has proved extremely significant in saving at least thirteen football clubs from bankruptcy and extinction.

How can we help further the growth of this movement? Is there a way in which we can support the movement’s expansion into other sports, or enable supporters to accumulate more equity and control in existing clubs?