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,
“I advocate that the people serve the people, and the state serves the people through law and order and defense of the realm.”
YYSSW, …so the soldiers in Afghanistan are not people and people do not make laws?
Again you create a false dichotomy. Ever wonder why the US constitution begins with “We the people”?
“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.”
Perhaps things are different where you live, but I do not recall ever voting for road repairs, rubbish collection, school dinners etc. But I hardly consider them to be symptoms of the decline of democracy or indicators of state encroachment. Overall, your definitions seem to miss the distinction between charity and philanthropy. Your homage to fakecharities is cause for concern, and not merely a political disagreement.
Your selected site states with regard to the identified charities:
“Additionally, these organisations will probably spend a large amount of their time lobbying the state to curtail our freedoms, although this is not a prerequisite for inclusion—after all, by applying to be recipients of the state’s “largesse”, these organisations are already actively colluding in theft and curtailing your freedom to do what you will with the profit of your hard work:”
http://fakecharities.org/about/
While the fake charities misnomer may down go well in the Hayek heaven of Civitas, the notion of purity implied by their 10% solution is rather trivial. Politically, however, their polemics are the ranting of a deranged mind. The idea of say, the Age of Concern, to be considered as a harbour for tyranny, thievery and collusion would be laughable if it were not so demented. You do need medication.
bob
*You do need medication.*
Typical of your ilk, makes assumptions on my arguments, misunderstand my words due to an inbuilt intolerance of other views, and resorts to insults.
*Perhaps things are different where you live, but I do not recall ever voting for road repairs, rubbish collection, school dinners etc. But I hardly consider them to be symptoms of the decline of democracy or indicators of state encroachment*
When a party put’s together it’s manifesto, it does not list every existing service and say’s that it will keep them.
It lists what they will do different.
When did you vote for councilors to give this money to charity, when did you vote for them to stop giving this money to charity.
I think you know the answer to both is you didn’t vote for it.
But please, keep arguing that councilors and government ministers should arbitrarily decide to give money to charity, quite why you think this is a good thing I have no idea.
Quite why you are opposed to voting for it to be state provided, I also don’t understand.
Daniel Pitt
RT @leftfootfwd: Big Society faces £5 billion of cuts writes @JohnPopham: http://bit.ly/dOT3BS
scandalousbill
Bob,
“When a party put’s together it’s manifesto, it does not list every existing service and say’s that it will keep them.
It lists what they will do different.
When did you vote for councilors to give this money to charity, when did you vote for them to stop giving this money to charity.
I think you know the answer to both is you didn’t vote for it.”
OK, so you have the floor, kindly explain how the above is “actively colluding in theft and curtailing your freedom to do what you will with the profit of your hard work:”
In addition to medication maybe you should get out more.