If the state is not prepared to help build voluntary local capacity in places like Liverpool, then who is? Asks John Popham of the cuts which threaten the "Big Society".
John Popham is an independent facilitator of community-based social media development, and a founder member of Our Society, a network that celebrates people-led local development
The “Big Society” has been much in the news over the past week or so, but not in ways in which its proponents in the coalition government would have liked. Liverpool City Council has pulled out of its role as a Big Society “Vanguard”, while Lord Nat Wei, the big society czar, has revealed that he cannot afford the level of voluntary effort required for the role. It may appear that a tide of negative publicity is threatening to overwhelm the whole project.
When a highly respected charity leader, who had initially expressed enthusiams for the Big Society concept, publicly condemns the way the thing is being carried out, then it begins to look very serious. Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, out-going executive director of Community Service Volunteers (CSV), is the latest voice to express the concern that the extent and speed of the public spending cuts is de-railing the Big Society train.
At the heart of this argument is a strange contradiction. David Cameron argues that the Big Society is about rolling back the state, giving more power to individuals and communities, and creating a society in which people take action to care for each other, rather than abrogating responsibility to government. At the same time, the prime minister argues that the cuts agenda and Big Society are not linked; that they would be advocating greater community control even if they were not having to make cuts.
However, there is an increasing realisation that the cuts make the Big Society impossible to deliver. There are two reasons for this. The first is that the state is being rolled back too fast; even if there were a queue of community organisations waiting to take over the running of former state services, the gap that is opening up is too big for them to fill.
The second reason is that there is increasing evidence that the sector being hardest hit at local level by the cuts is the very voluntary sector that underpins Big Society-type initiatives. As government withdraws funds from local authorities and other public agencies, they often find it easier to pass on a greater proportion of the cuts to the voluntary agencies they fund.
The website voluntary sector cuts has so far recorded more than £40 million worth of cuts to more than 200 voluntary sector organisations. The website relies on those facing budget reductions posting the information on the website, and so the figure represents the lower bound of the effect of the cuts. In fact, we are only part way through the first year of at least three years’ worth of cuts, which are estimated to be worth £4.5 billion or 40 per cent of the sector’s state funding.
At the moment at least, there doesn’t appear to be a queue of wealthy philanthropists waiting to invest in areas such as Liverpool, the one vanguard project which was actually situated in an area of extreme deprivation. If the state is not prepared to help build that voluntary local capacity, who is?
24 Responses to “Big Society faces £5 billion of cuts”
scandalousbill
Bob,
“But the point of the big society is not “we are Tories and love cutting services, oh, and beating up grannies”, its “as Tories we believe that the state should not do this, but the people should”
The division you lovingly advocate denotes a clear division between the people and the state. It, by itself, is perhaps the most significant underlying reason why the Tories are so out of touch with the people.
Do the people serve the state or is the state serve the people. You advocate the former when you say:
“I repeat “as Tories we believe that the state should not do this, but the people should”. In other words, the context of your above statements advocates that rulers should not be concerned with actions or activities which benefit the ruled.
While indeed this is most likely the defining common thread of the Sons of Thatcher approach, and I would not deny that it is currently being applied with full rigour by the Tory coalition, there are many who feel that the people should determine the actions of the state and the state should be accountable to the people.
Tim Swift
Failing the big society http://is.gd/q8nKlI
bob
*The division you lovingly advocate denotes a clear division between the people and the state. It, by itself, is perhaps the most significant underlying reason why the Tories are so out of touch with the people.*
Firstly the modern Tory party is about as true to it’s roots and as in touch with the people as gordon browns party was to labour, how else did they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the last election.
*Do the people serve the state or is the state serve the people. You advocate the former when you say*
No, I advocate that the people serve the people, and the state serves the people through law and order and defense of the realm.
*In other words, the context of your above statements advocates that rulers should not be concerned with actions or activities which benefit the ruled.*
You really need to stop twisting words to fit into your caricature of tory thinking (evil uncaring tories).
Firstly, what I have very clearly said is that the state should do as we ask it, not as it see’s fit, you wish to portray this as “the state should not care”. The problem with the state “acting in our benefit” is that the governments idea of what is good for us, isn’t maybe your idea of what is good for us, unless of course you agreed with the Iraq war, or CRB checks, refusing parents adoptive children because they smoke, etc?
The point is that services should either be state provided, or provided by the people (charity).
Where the left and right disagree is how much should be provided by the people, and how much by the state.
What I am saying to you is if you want the state to provide it, then do it properly through the state, not do it arbitrarily through charity (and abuse the language of charity).
*While indeed this is most likely the defining common thread of the Sons of Thatcher approach*
I don’t understand the left’s obsession with labeling the right with Thatcher and such, such thinking was around long before her days.
*there are many who feel that the people should determine the actions of the state and the state should be accountable to the people.*
Right, but that is exactly the point I am making.
The people should decide what charities receive money. You have no say in what charities government deems worthy of money and how much money, it’s purely at the whim of officials. Either the state should provide the service as a state service (so it is democratically accountable and you or I can vote for or against it), or it should be for me to give my money to who I want.
http://fakecharities.org/database/fake/
Tell me how many of those charities the public voted for the government to fund, you know as well as I do the answer is 0%.
And for every (random pick) Disability alliance charity the government gives money to, there is an ASH or Film institute charity they also give money to.
I voted for neither to be given charity money, and would rather give it to my local homeless charity.
If you or a bunch of people think that X charity should be given money, give them money, go fund raising, or campaign for the service to be brought in under state provision.
Don’t argue that such decisions should be left arbitrarily for a local council or government to make, because when you argue for the government to give money to charity, arbitrary decisions are what you get (or we wouldn’t be talking about this would we!).
And of course there is the simple argument that a charity is a charity because it relies on voluntary donations, tax money does in no way fulfill that criteria.
Mr. Sensible
The ‘Big Society’ has just been used as cover for cuts, and people are seeing through it.
bob
The big society isnt a cover for cuts.
The whole *point* of it is to make cuts in public expenditure.
To get people to do these things, rather than goverment.
Argue that people can’t be trusted to look after each other, and goverment should instead do this through taxation if that’s what you believe. But don’t rubbish the idea by completly misunderstanding it.