David Cameron’s “Big Society” is in democratic deficit. It is merely a back-door way of allowing the wealthy and educated to clean up at the expense of the poor.
Our guest writer is Sadie Smith
Saying that you are sceptical about the merits of devolving power to the people is taking a potshot at a holy cow of received political wisdom, that people are desperate to have more control over their local services. However, Cameron’s “Big Society” manifesto launch, far from striking a blow for the autonomy and choice agenda, is merely a back-door way of allowing the wealthy and educated to clean up at the expense of those of a lower social class and educational attainment.
To be fair, in theory, it all sounds so good. What is wrong, after all, with parents deciding that local schools are inadequate and starting their own? What is the problem with recognising that the state can be an inefficient provider of key services and choosing to have them administered by the voluntary sector instead? Well, there’s nothing wrong with these noble, empowering, sentiments as long as you have the people power to make them happen. The last thing any Government wants is to find that, having stormed the citadel of the Big State to many voices raised in joy, the same individuals cheering on liberation a few hours previously are moaning about having to clear up the rubble the next morning.
Cameron’s “Big Society” requires an engaged citizenry raring to take over the responsibilities of an outdated state bureaucracy. So how many people actually want to get involved in activism in their local communities? According to Cameron and the Conservatives the answer is, “Like, LOADS dude! Chuh, everyone hates politicians and community, grass roots activism is totally so Barack Obama. Facebook! Yeah!”
The actual answer, according to the Hansard Society’s Audit of Political Engagement 2009, which focused on political participation and citizenship, was “not that many, as it happens.” The independent study found that half the public do not want to be involved in decision making in their local area and over half (55 percent) do not want to be involved at a national level. Nearly half (40 percent) cite “lack of time” for not getting involved, and none of the other reasons receive a mention from more 12 percent of respondents.
The statistic that shoots a massive hole in the hull of Cameron’s manifesto on “hopey, changey stuff” is the one that deals with voting. Whilst 87 percent of those questioned thought it was “essential” or “important” to vote, only 53 percent said that they would be absolutely certain to do so. The Hansard Society comments that, “While the public has a clear view about the theory of being a good citizen – for example voting and making charitable donations – they do not actually make the leap from good intentions to positive action.”
Furthermore, the Audit found that social class was fundamental to engagement. ABs engaged more than DEs, frequently by a margin of 15 – 20 percentage points. In addition, university graduates were more likely to display higher levels of participation than their counterparts with few or no qualifications, as well as those who read a quality as opposed to popular newspaper. Unhappily for the Tory leader, this means that the saliva Cameron expended kissing Murdoch’s butt for that all-important Sun endorsement last autumn is going to deliver him very little in terms of votes and active citizens, according to the Audit’s analysis. More seriously, the demographic of – say – Sun readers without a university education and not of the AB social class are going to be the most ill-represented by Cameron’s “Big Society” proposals, in spite of the winsome page 3 stunna’s attempts to assure them otherwise.
It’s at times like this we need to ask the question: have the political class learned nothing from Foundation Hospitals? Responding to an apparent demand in the electorate to provide health care responsive to the needs of local people, the Government introduced the Foundation Hospital scheme which allows the population to vote on who sits on the hospital board according to what their healthcare priorities are. In line with the Audit’s findings, nobody really votes, much less stands for office, in these elections. Guys and St Thomas’ hospital has a potential constituency of over a million voters, but the number who actually take part can be counted in their hundreds. So hospitals now determine their priorities based on those belonging to the minority of the super-engaged and hospital staff, because most people simply do not have the time, knowledge, or technical tools that Cameron’s “Big Society” narrative assumes that everyone is in possession of.
The other downside for the Tories in the long term, and also a lesson from the Foundation Hospital debacle, is that the “Big Society” and “new localism” swiftly becomes a “postcode lottery” when an outraged mother unable to get her kid into her preferred school is interviewed by John Humphrys with the gleam of battle in his eye.
So, in an embarrassing turn of events it transpires that Dave’s “Big Society” idea is in democratic deficit before it’s even begun. Either that, or it’s merely a cunning front to empower the already powerful at the expense of those the traditional state apparatus, however imperfect, strives to protect.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
27 Responses to “Cameron’s “Big Society” is in democratic deficit”
Richard Blogger
Well, as a Foundation Trust governor I thought I should respond 🙂
I was elected under STV with three other governors for the area. There were 23 candidates. This says that people are willing to volunteer their time and skills. That’s good, huh? The problem is that in a constituency that covers 80,000 people there are about 1500 members and half of those voted. That backs up what you mention above, few people really want top vote.
Now I must correct you, because you made some serious errors about Foundation Trusts. Governors are not “on the board”, the board of directors are the executive directors (people with specific skills: finance director, medical director, a director for nursing, and the chief executive), and non-executive directors (people with more general skills from the community, one of which is the chair of the board). The Governors have a separate board chaired by the chair of the board of directors. FT governors do not have any day-to-day responsibility of running the hospital, nor hospital strategy FT Governors have specific and limited powers – appointing non-executive directors, appointing the chair of the trust, approving the auditors and approving the hospital strategy, are the main ones. Approving the hospital strategy, as far as I can tell, is more rubber stamping than anything else. In the best trusts (and I include my trust here) the board of directors use the governors as advisers as to what the community want and so there is a lot of communication between the two, but it is just advisory. The worst FT trusts (Mid Staffs appear to have been in this category) treat the governors as a necessary evil, don’t consult them, and keep them in the dark.
I don’t think that you can use Foundation Trust hospitals in your argument above.
Let me point you to something interesting. Yesterday, Andrew Lansley said that he would allow co-ops of doctors to take over NHS services. What’s so special about this? Well my FT hospital is under threat from Circle Healthcare. This is a private health company and a few years back they wanted to build a hospital in our area. The Chief Executive of our NHS FT hospital objected because he said that if Circle were awarded NHS contracts (under the *current* rules) it would threaten the financial viability of the NHS hospital. Circle agreed not to bid for NHS work, the Chief Exec withdrew his objection and planning permission was given. Circle have yet to build the hospital.
Who are Circle Healthcare? They are a co-op of NHS doctors who also do private work: exactly what Lansley was describing. In fact, I think Lansley was referring specifically to them because they are the “acceptable” face of private healthcare.
If the Tories are elected, Circle will build their hospital and they will then be given services from my hospital (Lansley has promised this, make no mistake, this is not a competitive bidding process, it is handing private healthcare the contracts on a plate) and then my hospital’s financial viability will be threatened.
Do you now see why I am so scared about a Cameron victory?
Andy Sutherland
Sadie Smith (@smithsky1979) is back. She says Cameron's "Big Society" allows the wealthy to clean up http://bit.ly/99C3v2 (via @leftfootfwd)
Richard Blogger
@JonSHarvey
I am afraid Cameron’s invitation is nothing about you or me. It is about private service providers.
Think about it. If I think that the social services in my area is badly run can I go to my local council and say “I am running social services now”? No.
Even if I got together ten of my neighbours to volunteer as a managerial committee would the local council accept us as the new management? No.
Even if I get several thousand people to sign a petition demanding that I am made head of social services would I be appointed? No. Not even if I had 30 years of experience and a list of letters after my name from the most prestigious universities, I still could not take over that department.
But if I have a company that provides social services at a cut price (by paying low wages and providing “economy class” services) I would have to fight off the “easy councils” who would want to wipe their hands of the poisoned chalice that is social services.
Cameron’s Big Society is nothing about you or me, it is all about privatisation, and it is about time Cameron admitted that is the case.
JonSHarvey
@Richard – perhaps you are right… but maybe we have to finesse the strategy so that it does become to be about you and me and lots of other people?
Richard Blogger
@JonSHarvey
“maybe we have to finesse the strategy”
I would like to see the FT idea developed, since, as mentioned above, it really is limited and for FT governors to have any influence it needs the cooperation of the hospital board. The FT model is a good starting point because it is starting from the right direction
The problem with Cameron’s Big Society is that it is starting from the wrong direction. The fact is, Cameron just wants to privatise NHS services piecemeal. That is his starting point. You cannot refine that model.
By the way, the private sector is not more efficient than the NHS (Lansley keeps spreading the lie that it is), so private sector solutions are not a permanent solution for NHS services. I am in favour of the private sector being used to provide temporary extra capacity to cut waiting lists, while the NHS provider increases its capacity. But it is not cost-effective to use them as a permanent solution.