Now I am really twitchy. Cameron is talking about communitarianism – the very philosphy proposed and heralded by none other than Tony Blair!!!!

They’ll be reinventing themselves soon and calling the Coalition – New Conservatives.

What a strange world we live in.

James,

Where in the Big Society programme (such as it is) has anyone suggested that parks will be sold off?

Because your entire case seems to be built around a straw man, and indeed to be self-contradictory. The Big Society recognises a role for the state (which basically would be provision of space). It is instead concerned with how services within this space are delivered – so your football project is actually a good example of the Big Society – volunteers coming together to offer something, using a space provided by the state.

You can argue whether the state needs to own parks (I would have this as one of the states’ functions myself – which is not to rule out having parks maintained by voluntary or private enterprises), and you can question at what level of governmetn this should be provided (as local as possible, or nationally-mandated provision) but you can’t use one of the clear mistakes of the last Conservative government as a stick to beat the Big Society, when the latter thing requires state provision of space.

“The Big Society recognises a role for the state”

You know, I’m not actually sure it does. Most of the rhetoric is about big society replacing the state. There is very little on how the state can enable big society – apart from de-regulation of volunteers (i.e. removing most CRB checks). And whilst you’re correct that parks are not being sold or closed to my knowlegde, community centres and libraries are. Which are both spaces that need to be provided.

Planeshift,

Fair point there – but remember the cuts and the Big Society are not complementary ideas. One is Mr Cameron’s own preferred way forward, the other a circumstantial response which does not exactly help the first.

The Big Society as an idea was to replace government control. The cuts are to limit government spending (there is no clear targetted ideology against controlling departments in the cuts). The two ideas are running together, but I don’t think that was how either was conceived.

The Big Society is fatally flawed as a concept because it is trying to conflate different ideas that are not compatible. The main flaw at its core is that it treats “the voluntary sector” as a monolith, but then cherry-picks different aspects of voluntary service to fit different (and often incoherent) ideas.

Cameron is correct in his attempt today to separate the Big Society from the cuts – even though he then re-attaches them by suggesting that, for example local people could run their own libraries – a typical example of his fatal incoherence.

Because there is no way that the Big Society is going to come close to offering anything that could replace the services that are going to be cut. An analogy here could be to compare the volunteer tea lady in a hospital ward. They do a very worthwhile job, but they’re not going to be running part of the health service.

Any service that offers something more than the ephemeral requires organisation and commitment. Given today’s long working hours and pressurised workplaces, few people have the energy or skills to do this, let alone do it for nothing.

I use to be my councils disability sports coach, with £500 a year to spend, this was for everything from CRB checks, kits coaching tools, right down to transport, I had to get another £500 by applying for grants, and had to go out begging for more money. This was under labour the Lottery would give me the £500. Then one day the local council called me in to say the money was being cuts as Gordon brown had decided the Lottery money needed to go for the Olympic games. I asked how much would I get to keep running the nine sports centers, he told me £30. He said you can still do your charity work, but you know the sports center that we allow you to use, thats going to cost you £600 a year, plus sadly you know your building , it’s to be sold.

After two years we closed the lot down,.

So may be the Tories big society is a load of bull but again so was new labours.

I always thought the aim of the Big Society was to try and create a more decentralised welfare system similar to that which existed before 1945 but with the state acting as a safety net to fill in any gaps. However, such a programme requires tax cuts to make the private money available and a nationwide voluntaristic and mutualistic mentality which may no longer exist.

Richard,

Since the idea was dreamt up before the recession took hold, it was possible for the economically barely literate (i.e. me…) to believe we could stop increasing spending and release the money from growth (I actually would have advocated cutting, but ideologically as much as anything).

It turned out there was a lot less money than we thought, so anyone who had counted on money being available to fund their pet Big Society project no longer had it. It says something for Mr Cameron’s committment that he still advocates a project born in a different economic situation (about his wisdom? God knows).

“The Big Society is fatally flawed as a concept”

- not really. I must say, I think David Cameron has hit on a groundbreaking concept, its a miracle that no one thought of it before.

He’s identified that the market does not delivery everything that society needs, and recognises that communities need to identify what actions and services need to be provided in other ways.

I want to help develop his mission further, into more tangible things, then I think people might get see how his Mission might work in practice.

Communities could get together and identify what services they need to provide. Off the top of my head these might be social care, education, public order, local amenities, and the upkeep of public spaces – roads and the like.

Now not everyone in the big society will have time to make decisions about what to provide, so some means of identifying representatives for each area would be needed – I haven’t thought how this could be done yet, but the community they represent would need, overall, to feel the selection was fair, and they remained accountable – perhaps by only being a representative for a limited time.

To help in this, people and local businesses could contribute money to help pay for the services these local communities recognise they need.

Big Society Representatives could even address issues that are difficult challenges which might be intangible to many – such as how best to co-ordinate the provision of education via Free Schools, to ensure there are no gaps in quality, quantity or resourcing.

To me, this idea of the Big Society is a huge change from the current situation, and something sorely needed – we clearly need to get rid of this system of councils, and replace it with the Big Society instead.

“Since the idea was dreamt up before the recession took hold,”

Actually the idea, in a serious sense (i.e. outside of academics) has been around since the late 90s, as new labor experimented (in thinking terms) with different service delivery models and to accommodate the fact that lottery and EU money had created a wave of new social enterprises and charities able to fund projects that traditional fundraising had failed in (also development of chugging but we won’t mention that ) The main debates being to what extent they could use the sector to deliver services, what ratio the state should fund projects and how (contracts, grants, core funding, social return on investment bonds etc). If you look at the stuff organisations like NCVO, WCVA (disclaimer: I used to work for them), institute for volunteering etc, were producingt and the conferences they were running you’ll get more of a picture.

At the same time, there were a number of leaders of groups – particularly in education – that were coming up with very challenging things that were highly critical of the status quo of service delivery. This gave them access to the conservatives, who also saw an opportunity to de-toxify the brand by getting people seen as hippies on board. They also then saw it as a way of extending the contracting out of services to areas previously politically impossible, and providing public services in a more efficient and cheaper manner – thereby providing scope for tax cuts.

Good article but a little narrow. Personally I think the Big Society project is just a component part of a larger plan. We know that:

* Too many charities have too few real volunteers who have the time and expertise required.
* Too many charities have too many highly paid staff.
* These charities are ultimately funded by central Government, Local Authorities right down to Parish Council.
* We have too little real engagement and interaction across all levels of society.
* It can’t possibly continue in its present form.

Personally I think we need some serious changes to the charity laws if this is going to work. Starting with Gift Aiding for wealthy estates ?

You have to warm to David’s (Hodd) asserion that the Big Society is a good thing. However, his asserion that ‘it’s a kiracle no-one has thought of it before’ may be a tad incorrect.

Cameron wants to reduce the size of the state – so did Thatcher. He wants to help communities become more rsponsible for local services – so did Thatcher. On top of that, David visualises a world where private enterprise contributes to the development and growth of local communities – so did Thatcher.

Unfortunately, we know where Thatcherism took us – into a divided nation where the working classes were pilloried and entire communities destroyed. I am old enough to remember what Tory “community politics” did to the small mining towns in the valleys of South Wales. How Tory intransigence reduced honourable working men and women to walking husks with no hope of any future.

As Cameron and Osborne push their cuts programme further forward I see a repeat of history about to take place. The miners, dockers and steelworkers are largely all gone now. Thatcher made sure of that – but now we have a generation of young people, many of whom have had no work since they left school. Offering them the chance to volunteer to dig gardens, run libraries, or serve school dinners is not the answer.

I truly respect your idealism David, even though I disagree with you. The world needs idealists. Although I am an avowed opponenet of everything that is Tory, for the good of our people I hope you are right, but I fear you are sadly mistaken.

@ 12. Tacitus ….oh spare us please ! When I lived outside Cardiff for several years I met and drank with countless miners as many of the mines were closing,

Many expressed fears for future generations and employment but most agreed it was an awful job and many were pleased to be out with a decent pay-off. I still exchange Christmas and birthday cards with a few and their views have not changed. The real problem now is how to revive the economies of ‘Valley’ communities – in particular the road, rail and bus links.

@12 tacitus

“You have to warm to David’s (Hodd) asserion that the Big Society is a good thing.”

No, you really don’t. The Big Society as a concept is not only intellectually dishonest, in that it tries to sugar coat the bitter pill of swingeing cuts with the “good news” that communitarianism, volunteering and the shrinking of the state will offset the pain, but what is worse it simply isn’t true.

As Johan Hari notes (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-when-will-the-souffl233-of-spin-collapse-2211002.html) volunteering is highest where state funding is highest;

“Far from “crowding out” volunteers, a big state attracts them, and a small state drives them away. Why? There are several reasons. A well-funded state can recruit, train and direct volunteers. And in a high-solidarity society, people are less panicked about losing their own jobs and more likely to trust their fellow citizens enough to want to give something back to them.”

The Big Society is as bogus as the Tory narrative about the failure of the multicultural society, or the fact that all our current ills are the responsibility of the Labour party (as though they would have been doing anything different!).

It is important to know your enemy. People Like David Hodd, however well intentioned, need to realise that their enthusiasm for the Big Society is unfounded; they are being used, because however much they try to prettify it, the Big Society still amounts to putting lipstick on a pig.

@13 Ted

“The real problem now is how to revive the economies of ‘Valley’ communities – in particular the road, rail and bus links.”

If you believe that the Big Society serves as a model for achieving these aims you are as big a dupe as the others who have fallen for the con. History will of course show that the Big Society was merely a cover for the imposition of ideologically driven cuts, window dressing to make it look less toxic than it actually is.

It’s the same story as the Thatcherite revolution which was supposed to miraculously shrink the state, and produce better public services, better infrastructure, increase the provision of social housing etc., all via the private sector.

None of it actually happened of course, however sincere the motivations of some of those supporting Thatcherite policy. What we actually ended up with were worse public services, crap infrastructure and less social housing because the concept was flawed.

@ 15 ….and yet when Major left office in 97 all the financial indicators were positive ? That is actually a fact but unfortunately I can’t find a link to prove it.

@16 Ted

So what? That doesn’t “prove” anything, even assuming you find a basis for the claim.

My general point remains; the supposed glittering prizes held out by the Thatcherite revolution weren’t achieved, any more than the purported benefits of the Big Society will be.

“Call Me Dave” may sincerely and genuinely believe that the Big Society is both a good thing, and will achieve results; there is no reason to believe he is right on either count.

As Johan Hari notes (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-when-will-the-souffl233-of-spin-collapse-2211002.html) volunteering is highest where state funding is highest;

You always have to be a bit careful relying on Hari as a source.

Then Hari produced one of his trademark obscure studies: an American academic who found a direct link between volunteering and state spending. Cameron is cutting money to charities, so QED. (Unable to find such a study in anything other than Hari’s articles, we contacted the academic he mentioned, Amitai Etzioni. He said he’d never heard of it. But you have to give Hari marks for chutzpah.)

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6699398/defining-the-bs.thtml

@16 Financial indicators being positive does not equal Better public services, better infrastructure and more social housing. To highlight the three things Galen10 was complaining about.

18 Tim J

You may be correct; no doubt Mr Hari can speak for himself, as the provenance of his quoted study has been challenged. I’d be somewhat surprised if he had nothing at all to back it up, but don’t know enough about him to make a judgement. Of course, just because the Spectator says it quizzed Amitai Etzioni and he didn’t recall the study, doesn’t mean the general point isn’t valid.

20 – Well, this is fairly unambiguous

The sociologist Amitai Etzioni conducted a major international study of volunteerism.

A quick google doesn’t throw up anything beyond Hari’s own article. The full list of Etzioni’s publications is here:

http://www.amitaietzioni.org/art_pro_journals.html

There’s nothing there in the last few years that looks like an international study of volunteerism. So the Speccie thought they’d ask the chap directly.

He said he’d never heard of it.

Looks reasonably clear cut to me.

21 Tim J

As I said, you may well be right; Hari may have his facts wrong with regards to the attribution – perhaps he will come clean and give an attribution?

However, irrespective of whether the attribution is correct, it still doesn’t necessarily negate the point, even if it does represent sloppy research or a misquote on Hari’s part.

From a brief search, it seems the study he’s referring to *might* relate to work done by Peter A.Hall and published in Robert Puttnam’s (Ed) ‘Democracy in Flux’, but I haven’t read or reviewed the source.

Puttnam’s work on “social capital” such as “Bowling Alone” would tend to support the general thrust of Hari’s argument however.

However, irrespective of whether the attribution is correct, it still doesn’t necessarily negate the point, even if it does represent sloppy research or a misquote on Hari’s part.

No, but it’s really quite poor on Hari’s part though isn’t it? He used this misattributed or made-up study on a live TV show as a way of slam-dunking his argument. ‘I’m right, and there’s a massive scientific study that says so!’

Boris Johnson got fired from the Times for making up a quote. Hari makes things up, gets basic facts wrong and simplifies to the point of distortion again and again and again. It’s worth at least occasionally picking him up on it.

I gather that the Big Society Bank that is going to be set up to fund these initiatives is going to operate as an investment bank, so any funds it dispenses will be expected to deliver a return for their money. The only example I’ve heard cited from a Big Society advocate (Angus Maude on Radio 4) is the Welfare to Work programme (the principle of payment by results). How on earth are all the other ideas going to deliver returns on investments (communities buying the local library, the local forest, the local bus service etc, and running them entirely by themselves)? Many of these services operate at a loss now, or only continue thanks to local government subsidy.

23 Tim J

I don’t disagree with the point about picking someone up for misattribution, or even worse aking something up to support their argument. … (altho it wouldn’t seem to have done Boris much harm…?).

Even assuming Hari can’t back up his attribution however, I’m more interested in the point he’s trying to make, which appears to me an entirely valid one (whether you agree with his conclusion or not…), that a better funded civil society or “big government” may in fact be better placed to deliver Big Society type benefits than a society which has been subjected to severe cuts a la Thatcher.

Puttnam’s work on “social capital” such as “Bowling Alone” would tend to support the general thrust of Hari’s argument however.

No it doesn’t. Puttnam charts the decline of civic engagement during a period of rising spending.

He notes that in the US half of all volunteering is now in a religious context.

High social capital correlates with quality of education, not government spending.

@ 17 Galen10 ….True, all new ventures are at best, educated guesses. At worst a chancers toss of the coin.

@ 19. Cylux …..True again but I think the Tories had reached a point where any form of expenditure on public services was frowned upon by that stage because they had found much cheaper ways of doing many things – not necessarily better though.

On a more important point, we all know that doing voluntary work is often a low level private and personal matter to many people. How is this ethos to be integrated with wider aspects of economic activity ?

@26 Flowerpower

Not from what I’m reading about both books, particularly “Democracies in Flux” which looks at a number of countries as well as the US, and has a number of different contributors.

There is certainly more in there to support the case that volunteerism is likely to be higher in societies with higher “social capital” than in those with less; the current cuts, or indeed any period with falling rather than rising spending, wouldn’t seem to me to support those arguing for the Big Society, rather than those arguing against it like Hari (even if his initial attribution isn’t correct).

@27 Ted

“True again but I think the Tories had reached a point where any form of expenditure on public services was frowned upon by that stage because they had found much cheaper ways of doing many things – not necessarily better though.”

The thing is, what they had found wasn’t a cheaper or more efficient way of doing things (which is what they purported to promise, whether honestly or not)… they simply didn’t do them!

Hence they made a virtue out of “doing things” and insisting that there was no alternative. Social housing and transport/infrastructure are good enough examples of how crap they were. It was quite possible to argue that both areas needed investment; the point is how to do it. The Tories, whether under Thatcher or Cameron have the same basic approach.

No doubt many sincerely believed under Thatcher that the private sector would somehow “revolutionise” social housing; it spectacularly didn’t do so. Similarly, the transport infrastructure, railways etc. were a total bugger’s muddle, as the supposed benefits of the ridiculously complicated way railways were privatised didn’t materialise either.

The likelihood is that the Big Society will be no more successful than Thatcher’s perpetual revolution or property owning democracy were; the rich will get richer, our society will remian as unequal as ever, or even see the disparity widen further.

The Big Society isn’t a solution..it’s a counsel of despair dressed up as a “gand projet”.

because they had found much cheaper ways of doing many things – not necessarily better though.

As the old cliché goes; “you buy cheap, you buy twice”. That could well be a blanket statement of any privatised function that cannot be allowed to fail. By rights the rail industry should be dead and buried, if not for subsidies, bail-outs and generously padded contracts from the governments of the day.
The benefit to the end user of all this? Er, none, so far, unless you count extortionate prices and shitter service of course.

@12 and 14

- perhaps I was being too oblique.

Try reading my post again, this time replacing “Big Society” with the words “Council”.

I was kind of hoping you would all say – “but isn’t that what councils do today?”

Cameron has an unsolvable problem with the big society: he has to keep it nebulous: the moment he tries to put substance to it, it becomes clear he is actually reinventing the wheel – a wheel he has so carefully rubbished as a concept.

Councils have always had an agenda to deliver what the market won’t but society has identified a need for. That’s why they (and charities working in tandem) were invented, and why they largely replaced the work of the Manorial Courts (an alternative interpretation on Cameron’s Big Society?)

Councils and their partnership with community groups and charities are the Big Society, and have always been.

If you are to make the Big Society agenda work better you have to reinforce the relevance and accountability of local governments – since that is key to getting local consensus on what is needed. Yet in word and deed, Cameron presents Councils as part of the problem, and never part of the solution.

Gaffs like the Big Society Tzar stepping down as he needs to work for money to support his family, and strategic car crashes such Pickle’s “Look how bold I can be” approach to resourcing our most critical area of support to the big society – all these are inevitable with the stategic contradiction that is the Coalition’s Big Society agenda.

…And now the big society will see charities applying to a central investment bank, whilst Cameron presents it the end of top down and the start of local people doing what they want for their communities.