Big Society - language and practice

[Tim Lund]

I was an an event organised by 'Networked Neighbourhoods' http://networkedneighbourhoods.com/ yesterday for citizen led sites - of which this forum is a fine example. One of the discussions was on 'The Big Society', and apparently one of the people there was a special advisor to David Cameron on community networks, and the person leading it was evidently in the same loop. The following is a better expressed version of some points I tried - not very well - to make. Interested to know what others on this forum think.

I am uncomfortable about the use of the term 'Big Society' because of its inevitable party political associations, and in my borough - Lewisham - it is widely avoided even when we are aware that it might be thought applicable to what we are doing. So I want to know how much the effectiveness of local authorities will now depend on them - and us - being prepared to use such language.

My understanding of what the term means in practice is having volunteers involved in providing public services. Or maybe 'citizens' - since, it has been suggested that this as a better term than 'voluntary sector' in the context of 'co-production' - a perhaps more comprehensible bit of 'Big Society' jargon. Whatever, I guess this distinction is made to allow people getting paid for working with the fully public sector, in whatever legal capacity - not-for-profit employee, or someone whose greater effectiveness can also reward shareholders of a normal plc.

Personally, I would like to see the practice but I cannot see how the politics will work. Ideally, I guess, there would be an understanding of how it would for all those involved:

• good public sector employees getting the rewards they deserve;

• citizens getting better public services in their areas

• in some cases getting paid

• in all cases retaining appropriate democratic control;

and

• government getting the greater efficiency it wants.

But where the need to fight the cuts is seen as more important, it is a brave person who tries to make anything happen. There is also a very reasonable concern that any 'co-production' will indeed be 'cheap work for the council' if councils divert resources away from areas where the big society - for want of a better term- is working, to areas where greater social problems mean that it does not. There are echoes here of the debate over welfare reform; when central government struggles to eliminate the welfare trap, can local government be expected not to create local 'big society' traps, and make anyone who puts their hand up look like an idiot as well?

Against this background, I really feel for senior council officers required to make central government policy work in their areas when if it is over burdened with the language of the Big Society.

[Bovine Juice]

I have no problem with encouraging people to be more involved in their local communities but trying to get the public to do for free what the state should be providing is just a con.

[leenewham]

Totally agree.

Big society is good.
DIY society is a joke.

[Robin Orton]

Ive just looked at the Prime Minister's July speech about the 'Big Society' (awful title, I agree) - see http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeche ... eech-53572. He implies that the BS goes beyond 'having volunteers involved in providing public services' (as in the quotation in Tim's posting) and identifies three strands:

First, the Government 'must foster and support a new culture of voluntarism, philanthropy, social action.'

Secondly, decentralizing public services and encouraging local people, including those involved in front-line services, to develop new models for service provision, including those involving charities, social enterprises and the private sector.

Thirdly, local empowerment, 'communities with oomph', neighbourhoods who feel they are in charge of their own destiny.

I believe a lot of the ideological background for this comes from people like Philip Blond, whose Red Tory I have recently read with interest. His thesis is that the decline of 'civil society' - traditional voluntary and civically responsible organizations (local government, churches, trades unions, cooperative societies, 'locally organized groups that operate on the basis of more than single issues' ) - has left a gap which neither the market nor government can adequately fill. Nobody feels a sense of 'belonging' and so nobody feels responsible for other people. Hence the 'broken society.' For it to be repaired, 'civil society' has got to be revived and encouraged. (Perhaps e.g. this forum and the Sydenham Society have, potentially, modest roles here?)

How practical all this is, or whether it is is more than High Tory nostalgia for a mythical 'organic' pre-modern society, are interesting questions which I wouldn't even try to answer. But I do think that the thinking behind it is something which progressive or 'left' political opinion has got to take seriously and not just rubbish as a smokescreen for 'the cuts.'

[leenewham]

Robin, I totally agree with you, apart from the last paragraph.

Everything I have read about the Big Society looks promising, but in practice it seems to be about using volunteers to replace the services the government is cutting.

I thought the Big Society was to help civic groups, but with the Playbuilder cuts, possible library closures etc, more pressure seems to be placed on civic groups to maintain existing services rather than improve our society.

So up to now Big Society seems to equal DIY society. Which as you point out isn't what it was sold to us as. So personally, I believe it is a smokescreen and that Cameron was spinning us a yarn. Lets face it, it's not the first time a politician has done something similar is it?

[Tim Lund]

Robin:

I hope you appreciate that basically we are in agreement - as I wrote

Personally, I would like to see the practice

But I think a bit of 'optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect' is in order. In these days, I often wonder what it's like for senior council officers, who I have no doubt genuinely want to deliver better services, but are trapped by some combination of established structures and ways of thinking - of their own and others. Most of us - those on whom it is not incumbent to make these decisions - have a option, which is just to have a moan, even though we will all suffer from the poorer services we may end up with. But senior officers are in the immediate firing line of a radical agenda coming from Eric Pickles and co. - e.g. the idea of forcing Councils to publish all spending items over £500, and release an 'army of armchair auditors' and at the same time abolishing quangos such as the Audit Commission, which produce reports such as this http://oneplace.audit-commission.gov.uk ... ority=4334 which justify the current management of the Council.

Can you imagine what sort of impact this might have?

[Robin Orton]

In response to Lee, I think that,rightly or wrongly, David Cameron genuinely believes in his Big Society project. It featured prominently (though not under that title) in his speech to last year's Tory conference and he set it out in more detail in his Hugo Young lecture in November. It was also of course in the Tory election manifesto.

I agree that to launch a policy of this kind at a time when the Government are also committed to big cuts in public expenditure is bound to arouse suspicions.On the other hand, would anyone other than the Tory hardcore listen to this sort of idea if it were floated during a period of economic boom? I think we are sometimes too ready to attribute base and deceitful motives to our politicians. That is not to say that they are not sometimes, like the rest of us, base and deceitful; but I think that most of them have a genuine political vision which they want to put into effect. Fight the culture of suspicion!

I must say that I don't quite follow Tim's latest point. Why should getting the Audit Commission off their back and getting them to be more transparent about their expenditure make it more difficult for council members and officers to think about new ways of providing services?

[Tim Lund]

Robin:

My point is that the Audit Commission is actually quite comforting to senior management - certainly the devil they know. The alternative, of individuals pursuing particular hobby horses and following up minor details that they do not really understand, is not something even good public servants will be too keen on. This is not to say I don't see that it could be a force for good, and I mean to look at the information when released, and try to see what it tells us. I hope to use it responsibly if I can, while accepting that I might get the wrong end of the stick in various ways, ans so irritate officers who are just as committed as I am to public services.

[princess and the pea]

The Big Society - what a joke.

Only someone like David Cameron (and his ilk) could possibly come up with that term. These people don't live in the real world.

Its almost as bad as New Labour-speak.

[stone-penge]

I suspect the Big Society is how the goverment wants us to spend our time once we've lost our jobs due to spending cuts.

[leenewham]

If David Cameron truly believed in his Big Society as a way of empowering local people in addition to existing services, then his government wouldn't be floating stupid ideas like putting libraries in pubs.

Cameron is an intelligent man, but I believe he and his ministers are taking ordinary people for fools and using BS (It stands for Big Society or Bull Sh*t, you decide) as a softener to the cuts. We have to make cuts, but the issue is that the ones that are being made affect community and the people who need the most help more than those that don't.

[Tim Lund]

I've just read through the link Robin gave to David Cameron's 'Big Society' speech http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeche ... eech-53572. To the extent that it goes beyond my understanding - of having volunteers involved in providing public services - into such abstract concepts as a 'new culture', 'decentralisation' and 'local empowerment', I'm not sure that it says much more than is implied by the elements I suggested of how it could work, e.g.

• good public sector employees getting the rewards they deserve;

• citizens getting better public services in their areas

• in some cases getting paid

• in all cases retaining appropriate democratic control; and

• government getting the greater efficiency it wants.

The problem with these abstract terms is that they set off almost everyone's bullshit detectors. But I would ask all those whose detectors are firing here on this thread whether in practice they accept the principles, that:

1. good public sector employees deserve a decent salary - and conversely that poorly performing ones deserve to lose their jobs

2. it's okay for some people other than public sector employees to be paid for helping deliver public services

3. the performance of anyone providing public services should be subject to effective democratic control - which for me means agreements as to what people / organisations are supposed to do which are clear enough for them to be called to account when they do not do it

Finally,

4. that if local people do get involved in providing public services in their area, local authorities should not be able to divert resources away from the area because of it

If we had all these, someone might choose to describe it as a new culture of locally empowered decentralisation, but what difference would that make?

[Robin Orton]

Everyone posting on this thread, and related ones about the Lewisham cuts, seems to start from the assumption that one of the most important roles of the state is to redistribute resources (cultural and social as well as financial) from rich people to poor people by providing 'public services', delivered by 'public sector employees'. This enables poorer people to have access to decent housing, education, medical and social care, libraries etc which they would not otherwise be able to afford. ('The state' means in effect central government; in practice, local authorities act largely as agents of central government in these activities and are severely constrained both in what they can raise in taxes and charges and in what they can spend.)

What Tim, Lee and others say is quite consistent with this assumption. Reducing the deficit by cuts in 'public services' (rather than by increases in taxation) will hit the poorest most. Libraries should be run by 'public sector employees', or at any rate by people whose salary is paid directly or indirectly from public funds. The provision of 'public services' should be subject to 'effective democratic control' (i.e, presumably, regulated by the council.) The state should never be allowed to reduce what it spends overall on a service just because somebody else has taken over responsibility for delivering some aspects of it; there can be no 'cuts'.

As I understand it, the Prime Minister and his supporters do not however start from this assumption. (Perhaps some Tory, or Lib Dem supporter of the current coalition government, would join this debate, so that we could have an authoritative view?) They play down the role of the state in redistributing resources; they believe rather that the poor should be encouraged to better themselves (again, culturally and socially, as well as economically). As regards 'public services', they believe in the Big Society, not Big Government; we should be moving in the direction of a plurality of different resource providers, not only voluntary organizations and individual volunteers, but also cooperatives of various kinds and the private sector.

BS-ers (and others, including me) believe that in any case new methods of service delivery should be looked at. It may be a 'stupid idea' (Lee) to put libraries in pubs, certainly if by a library you mean shelves and shelves of books. On the other hand, if you think of a library as a community centre with an information hub as its core component, it might not be quite so silly.

[leenewham]

You can't replace a whole library with a few books in a pub.

Will children be allowed in a pub on their own?

No? Then it's a stupid idea isn't it?



Helping pubs increase their business by adding a library in addition to existing services, yes, not a bad idea as long as the pub has done some research and find that it would help their business.

Public services are for everyone irrespective of income. Problem is, when they are withdrawn it's the people with lower disposable incomes who suffer the most. The job of the government isn't to rob the rich and feed the poor as you suggest Robin. I don't believe that (although they should have an obligation to help people help themselves).

I enjoy this little debates Robin and hope that they are taken in the spirit in which they are intended, I know forums and online 'debates' can be interpreted in different ways. But it's good to have your way of thinking challenged. Talking of which, have you heard of TED.com Robin? I'm a huge fan.

[Tim Lund]

Robin:

I really don't think I start from

the assumption that one of the most important roles of the state is to redistribute resources (cultural and social as well as financial) from rich people to poor people

even though a certain amount of redistribution will be required for any mainstream idea of social justice - something good Catholics like Ian Duncan Smith I'm sure would accept. So what I write would also seem consistent with the opposite of what you suggest.

On the immediate matter of libraries, it's you who seem to worry that they amount to spending on the sharp elbowed middle classes, while I have defended them as universal benefits, which makes you more the knee-jerk redistributionist than me.

[Robin Orton]

Thanks, Lee, (and for the TED.com link - looks great). I enjoy arguing these things out too. The trouble is, my cast of mind is such that I'm always tempted to focus on the theory rather than the practicalities, and to try to see both sides of the argument. I hope this isn't too irritating for people like you and Tim who are, I would guess, more concerned with the practical or political problems - in Tim's case (not yours perhaps?) getting people to look at issues like the future of Sydenham Library in a flexible way but without appearing to side with a particular political party or its economic policies.

I largely agree with your latest posting. The point about libraries etc being available to everyone (on a non-means-tested basis!), which I think Tim is also making in his latest post, is an important one; services targetted just at poor people are likely to produce a two-tier system and undermine social solidarity. However, we've already in practice got two-tier systems in education and housing, where the rich(er) often opt out of state provision. Perhaps there is evidence of the same thing happening in libraries. People on this forum have admitted that they no longer use public libraries; they've got broadband at home and get their books and CDs from Amazon. Perhaps this is an irresistible trend and the social-democratic model of universal high-quality public services provided out of taxation has had its day; quite apart from the ideological questions, people just don't seem prepared to pay the level of taxes necessary to sustain it. So perhaps there is a need to look at other models. And perhaps this is what the BS-ers are really groping for.

The same arguments can, of course, be, and increasingly will be. applied to the NHS - perhaps even (picking up Tim's point about Ian Duncan Smith) to social security benefits (or 'welfare', as we seem to have to call them nowadays), although I don't know whether anyone has actually tried to apply the BS model to them.