Well a lot has happened since the Big Society first appeared as a political concept, a Coalition policy approach, and an independent citizen-led movement! established to help remove barriers to mass participation. As I have said before, it can be hard to get your head around at first, largely because it is organic and evolutionary in its nature, and because it maps in my view more closely to real life – infinitely varied and often surprising. It is more substantial than the tedious ‘do a press launch, announce a target, bring out the champagne’ approach of the previous government – which too often did not ultimately seem to really affect people’s lives on the ground.
But despite this, and the critiques from the some on the left and right, I’ve been struck by how the Big Society has struck a chord with ordinary people whether in the country or in town who feel government, and indeed many institutions such as some business or even some voluntary organisations have become too “big” if not in a literal sense then in terms of their attitude. Such organisations have often become overly bureaucratic, bloated, and distant from us, and leave little room for us as citizens to have a say, or to take matters into our own hands to improve our lives together where we live and where it is appropriate – in short they do not make ourselves as citizens, as a society, feel and be “big” but “small” and insignificant. Such a situation is a far cry from the vision of the welfare state which Beveridge had in mind to which we need through Big Society to return, and even of the early pre-Fabian Labour movement. Here is an excerpt from wikipedia quoting one of the principles of the Beveridge report which lay the foundations of today’s welfare state from pensions, to the NHS, social housing, and national insurance:
“Policies of social security ‘must be achieved by co-operation between the State and the individual’, with the state securing the service and contributions. The state ‘should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family’.
Compare this to David Cameron’s vision for the state in last year’s Hugo Young Memorial Lecture:
“I want to extend and deepen the argument I made in my party conference speech this year, that the size, scope and role of government in Britain has reached a point where it is now inhibiting, not advancing the progressive aims of reducing poverty, fighting inequality, and increasing general well-being. Indeed there is a worrying paradox that because of its effect on personal and social responsibility, the recent growth of the state has promoted not social solidarity, but selfishness and individualism.
But I also want to argue that just because big government has helped atomise our society, it doesn’t follow that smaller government would automatically bring us together again.
Yes, there are specific instances where the very act of rolling back the state will serve to roll forward society, for example when organisations that have been dependent on the state are asked to go outside government for funding, and thereby improve their record of engaging with the public and society. But I believe that in general, a simplistic retrenchment of the state which assumes that better alternatives to state action will just spring to life unbidden is wrong. Instead we need a thoughtful re-imagination of the role, as well as the size, of the state.
The first step must be a new focus on empowering and enabling individuals, families and communities to take control of their lives so we create the avenues through which responsibility and opportunity can develop. This is especially vital in what is today the front line of the fight against poverty and inequality: education.
But I also want to argue that the re-imagined state should not stop at creating opportunities for people to take control of their lives. It must actively help people take advantage of this new freedom. This means a new role for the state: actively helping to create the big society; directly agitating for, catalysing and galvanising social renewal.
So yes, in the fight against poverty, inequality, social breakdown and injustice I do want to move from state action to social action. But I see a powerful role for government in helping to engineer that shift. Let me put it more plainly: we must use the state to remake society.”
I think this is why opposition politicians before and during the election and today – while keen at times to criticize it as a “veil for cuts” (despite the fact that it was created before the last government created the deficit that now requires such large savings to be made) or as lacking substance (despite it being much more substantial than much of the last government’s programme – remember the Big Conversation?) – are privately and sometimes publicly envious of it. Both Paddy Ashdown during the election, and the Miliband brothers have alluded to it in speeches either claiming to improve on it, or coming up with their own more watered down versions, such as the Good Society. The Left need to listen to the voters who switched at the election, who according to Demos/YouGov research were fed up with Big Government and Big Debt. My big fear from the rhetoric we have heard from the leadership candidates so far is that they still believe in Big Government/Debt but are trying to dress it up unconvincingly in bigsocietyish language, and are risking being seen to be behind the times and out of touch (see another Demos/YouGov survey highlighting how this has started to happen already).
explaining the need for change doesn’t make it happen.
so wtf have you been doing with your time since you invented the big society eh?
more importantly, wtf aren’t you following me on Twitter? I had a pony on me to be in your first 5.
and what’s a lord doing living in an effing council house? is your Twitter profile seriously telling me you’re skint?
good luck with the job. when do you start?
Nat, please don’t dismiss the critiques as ‘extremes’ – they’re not, and need to be engaged with. Opposition is a much better starting point for a conversation than apathy.
I think if we’re to take the idea of citizen empowerment seriously, whether we call it Big Society or something else, we need to accept that we can’t determine what the end product will be in advance. So a Big Society that works might choose to refashion the state in an entirely different way to that envisaged by the coalition government.
What we have heard constantly through the debates and discussions that have taken place so far is that the Big Society is here already, and needs to be supported. If you can be an advocate in government for the social action that is already happening across the country but is currently at risk from the withdrawal of support, you’ll win many friends.
I’m not suggesting everything that’s funded should be preserved regardless of value, but for government to cut what it claims to believe in undermines the credibility of the Big Society aspiration. That’s the challenge that needs to be addressed.
A couple of quick points in response to this post:
As Julian points out above the Big society is already here, so let’s work with that and build on the best of what we have rather than reinventing (as is so often the case when Government has a bright idea). As a case in point you state that a lot has happened since the Big Society was born. In terms of the “independent mutual citizen-led movement”, by which I am sure you are referring to 160+ year old cooperative movement – certainly a lot has happened! (I think we can hardly call the Big Society Network a ‘movement’, not yet at least; ‘initiative’ I’d go with).
Second point is that I really don’t understand your focus on party politics in this post. I doubt very much whether I am alone in being VERY tired with the continual “mine’s bigger than yours” sniping between Labour and Tory supporters. It does no-one any favours, does not enlighten the debate one iota and has little bearing on the core issues here in my view. So let’s move on to something a little more intelligent, shall we?
The size of the state should be determined by what we decide it needs to do, so the argument about big state vs little state seems spurious to me. If we want to strengthen civil society, as you and others such as Mr Blond area advocating, and which as a cooperative community activist I support, then we need to resource that work. Much of the evidence I see at the moment appears to show that your colleagues in government are busy doing the opposite. As Julian says, if you or others can be clear about resourcing the BS, and standing up for the good things that we are doing and have been doing for decades, then we who are actively involved on the ground might be less disposed to be quite so negative.
As someone who has spent many years coming up against the bureaucracy while trying to gain government support, both local and national, for projects that my community is seeking to promote, I very much look forward to becoming empowered by the BS.
Hello all,
I want to do a lot of this stuff and i think other non policy wonks too. I want to raise the profile of what is currently happening (and is chronically undervalued), I want to renegotiate the hierarchy between LAs of VCS (having worked for both, this is changing but slowly). And I want to build on establishing local partnerships between citizens and business and support organisations for the benefit of small geographic areas.
I want to broaden what is currently seen as possible, not by talking about it, but by doing it. I am slightly worried that a lot of the new Big Society talk has been about new initiatives at a time when current services are struggling – but if this is the excitement of people imagining big changes then that’s fine for now.
My main question is about time (and it’s not the most obvious one about not having enough of it, although of course that is the case). My question is how we match the timescales of citizens (days and weeks) with governments/ decisions (months and years). I see this as the major blocker in getting changes implemented, yet i’ve seen it work in other countries with more flexibility & trust. (We’re getting back onto community panels and councillor territory that people have struggled with for years.)
In terms of support for development agencies like mine – I see peer support, twinning, or VCO ‘training credits’ as ways of getting small VCOs what they need. (and it fits with the personalisation agenda too). IMHO the system that has been set up for supporting VCOs needs looking at and we need to do this at the same time as jovially arguing about money..
Thanks
Casey
Casey hits the nail on the head when he/she talks about “trust”. Central to this whole agenda is the fact that government at all levels needs to trust us – local people with good ideas – to go out there and get on with it. In my nearly 30 years of active involvement my experience is that the state has shown less and less trust in us, and it has therefore become harder and harder to make stuff happen.
Of course there needs to be checks and balances, as it is public money that’s involved, but there needs to be much, much more innovation-friendly, entrepreneurial, non risk averse mindset amongst those that hold the purse strings at all levels, if we are to see anything like the timeliness that Casey refers to, and the empowerment that Nat seeks to create.
Give us the tools, and we’ll do the job.
I’d second Graham (and Julian), there’s a worrying amount of Party political sniping in this post.
I am clearly not of your political persuasion, but I’m clear-minded enough to consider Big Society as a tool for building a better connection between ordinary people, their communities and, yes, the state. It’s ahem hardly a new concept.
I work in the third sector (think we’re calling it civil society now), so I’m all for harnessing the kind of social action that charity and NGO organisations are built on to strengthen social cohesion. You’ve got my support all the way.
But I’ll also reserve the right to be a critical ally when my sector is facing cuts in resources, while still being expected to rally the troops and raise a community army.
I’m here to help, but you’ll alienate me with Party spats, I’m afraid.
Thanks for the feedback on the use of “extremes” which I have taken on board. On the politics debate I’ll make two points. First if you read my post I’m trying to say that this more open approach to society has roots in all political traditions, but I must say that given the attack that I am at times subjected to for being a Tory, albeit an unusual one living on a council estate, I should be able to defend myself from time to time – especially since this blog is about a range of interests that I have and not a generic or exclusively about Big Society. My critique anyway of Labour is mainly about the risk that they will not move with the times and embrace genuine citizen participation, which is I think well-founded given the backing of Big Unions they now enjoy and of Big Business in the past.
As for cuts, about which I intend to blog more soon, all I can say is how angry I am that so many community projects and social enterprises were led up a garden path even though the recession started two years ago and that many became so reliant on government funding and are now at risk because their funding base became so concentrated. I’m going to do everything I can with colleagues in government to help cushion the blow, and rouse philanthropy to help transition the VCS to develop more balanced streams of income and business plans to match with skills and support from the many concerned onlookers who can help with this transition, and over time make funding from government more locally owned and commissioned – but we are where we are because of what the last government did, not because my colleagues do not care about the VCS.
The final point to say is that the VCS is not necessarily synonymous with Big Society. Many charities and social enterprises both actually big and small can be just as bureaucratic and unempowering of citizens as Big Government, and often this is because most of the funding they have has come from the state with all the strings that can be associated with that. They have ended up becoming Big Charity, not Big Society.
Thanks for your reply, Nat.
Fair point regards the bureaucratic nature of some charities – this is something I’ve seen first hand. And of course charities should not live hand-to-mouth from the state, but some financial lifeblood is generally positive, especially as a good deal are delivering essential public services which is saving Gov money overall.
At Whizz-Kidz incidentally, we are trying to have the best of both by pooling resources and expertise with local NHS services, so that we are working together to deliver more mobility equipment to more children). I think this is a good model.
I’ll echo Robert Ashton below though; “there is an appetite and growing enthusiasm for ‘Big Society’ – but the more political it is seen to be, the slower it will grow as a movement.”
I think you’ll find plenty of lefties who will use Big Society as a tool to harness volunteers and social action. If it is as important as reducing the deficit though, it really should be non-partisan; as buy-in of all colours will really help it embed.
Cheers, Rob
Nat
I would go further and say that the VCS is definitely not synonymous with the Big Society, and I work for a VCS umbrella body.
But with respect, I think it is a mistake to equate bureaucracy in such organisations with statutory funding. I dont recall similar accusations being made at private sector organisations such as Capita or A4e. I therefore worry that state funding of vol orgs = bureaucracy in vol orgs is wrongly being used to justify cuts.
Might I also suggest that the ‘dependency’ argument is overdone. Statutory funding of vol orgs is highly concentrated in a small number of, yes, Big Charities, like RNID. Some recent work on value chain analysis shows how much RNID saved the NHS when it turned around its hearing aid service. I suspect digital hearing aids empowered users. On what basis should we cut this sort of core public service spending, just because a Big Charity is delivering it?
Cheers
Karl
Erudite debate is all very worthy, but the action needs to take place at grassroots level where Big Society must be both possible and easy to understand.
There are legisltative barriers and cynical bureaucrats to by-pass before the public can regain control of the public sector. That I guess needs some political concensus to be sought if the wary, emerging community entrepreneur is to feel confident that what they help create today, will not be unpicked by a future administration.
From what I see, working on the ground, there is an appetite and growing enthusiasm for ‘Big Society’ – but the more political it is seen to be, the slower it will grow as a movement.
PS Nat: NCVO and the Third Sector Research Seminar are holding a seminar about what evidence exists to inform the Big Society debate. Its underpinned by a desire to inform the debate, not any academic grandstanding. It would be good if you could come, particularly as Julian says we need to engage with these arguments. (And I’m hoping Julian will be there, so you can debate with him). DM me on http://www.twitter.com/karlwilding
It’s clear that a simple retrenchment of the State would be a mistake. If it’s part of the problem, it’s also a big part of the solution. And you can’t get away from the fact that the biggest thing the State can bring to the party is money. As any banker will tell you, to make money takes money. Similarly to innovate, requires investment in innovation.
There are a few challenges as I see it:
a) figuring out who is getting the money today but not making the best use of it. Problem is that is easier said than done. Reviews tend to favour the organisations best equipped to deal with the auditors. Evaluations themselves aren’t without flaws, given they can only measure what is measurable, and social impacts can be a bit trickier than that. Which reminds me of an old quote, “50% of advertising doesn’t work. The difficult bit is figuring out which 50%”. The same could be said of social action.
b) figuring out who needs the money, and what the State can best do to get it to them. I think most agree that money from the centre is not always well distributed or spent. There needs to be different structures, so I’m intrigued by you mentioning local sources and commissioning. We definitely need to find better ways of moving the money about. Hand in hand, this goes with removing the structural barriers that prevent certain organizations securing the money because they’re the wrong size and don’t do jargon well; and encourage commissioners to be risk averse.
This is easier said than done. Highlighting the problem is the simple bit. Getting it right (or simply less wrong) takes time. The worry with the extensive cuts is that by the time the reviews are over, cultures are changed, structures renewed, local commissioning is working etc etc, a lot of services will be lost, important needs will be unmet and we’ll all pay the price.
I don’t disagree with the direction of travel necessarily, but it begs the question, why so quickly? (er, I know you’re not the government spokesman on these matters, so that is more of a rhetorical question. Punchy endings ‘n’ all!)
[...] Nat Wei’s recent blog post underlined the complex nature of the Big Society: ‘As I have said before, it can be hard to get your head around at first, largely because it is organic and evolutionary in its nature, and because it maps in my view more closely to real life – infinitely varied and often surprising. It is more substantial than the tedious ‘do a press launch, announce a target, bring out the champagne’ approach of the previous government – which too often did not ultimately seem to really affect people’s lives on the ground.’ [...]
My comment relates specifically to the BigSoc ‘Community Right to Build’….which I strongly support in principle. There are, however, practical/detailed points to iron out:
* I think it is a mistake to rule out rural market towns from
the CRB. English rural market towns are severely pressured in terms of high house prices and a mechanism such as this to secure affordable homes would be invaluable.
* The ‘Community Right to Build’ is predicated on 75% support from a parish referendum. This is likely to be impossible at several
levels: For example, the parish (parish council area) may well contain more than one village. Both in principle and practice a parish vote of 75% in favour is unlikely…..why would people in let’s say Painswick
(Gloucestershire) support or even vote in relation to housing in Sheepscombe village (both of which are in the same parish)? Surely the better measure would be say a percentage of the relevant village population……maybe with the cut-off as the development boundary around the village? 75% also sounds way too high…..given those who choose not to vote and those voting against. Regardless, surely a vote of say 55% in favour would send a clear signal and mandate to proceed.
* Finally, just as David Cameron has announced in relation to Cumbria and the ‘Big Society’, why not ‘pilot’ the ‘Community Right to Build’ in 3 or 4 local authority areas……and when you do, I really hope you select my own principal authority – Tewkesbury Borough in Gloucestershire (I look forward to hearing from you)!
[...] Some elements of the Coalition’s Big Society vision do head in the right direction (a supporting role for the state, support for mutual and more citizen powers). Lord Wei calls it an ‘independent citizen-led movement’. [...]
Dear Nat,
I’d like to invite you to take part in a 4-part radio series from London I’ll be recording soon for RTHK Radio 3, to be broadcast in Hong Kong.
See:
http://programme.rthk.org.hk/channel/radio/programme.php?name=/give_me_five&p=4303&m=archive&page=1&item=50
I can’t find another way of contacting you other than through this blog.
Please let me know if you’d be interested & available from mid to end of Dec.
Sincerely,
Andrew Dembina, writer, editor & broadcaster, Hong Kong