The Big Society

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The coalition government in Britain under the Cameron-Clegg leadership is talking about the “Big Society” all the time ever since they formed the government after the general election in 2010.

I do not say that they were elected to govern as neither of the parties got a real workable majority, but that is a different issue.

Talk about the “Big Society” is increasing more and more in the beginning of 2011 as the government is cutting is cutting back services on a national and local level due to spending cuts and the attempt of tackling the deficit in the national coffers. The Cameron-Clegg coalition hopes that volunteers will step into the breach here where government services will no longer provide. And this in a country where successive governments have always treated the people as imbeciles and children.

Successive British governments have always detested empowering the people of the country, be this in creating their own habitats and homes or in running their own affairs. And on top of that all comes that the inherent secrecy culture in the UK governed by the Official Secrets Act 1911 Section 2 which is used as a blanket to cover everything possible that should never have been included.

So, what am I saying, you ask?

Personally I will have to be really convinced that what I am hearing David Cameron, the Prime Minister, say on this matter is also what he actually thinks and means. Britain just has a bad track record of empowering the grassroots regardless of what party has been in power. This is why I am so very sceptic here as far as this “Big Society” idea of his goes.

I am also concerned that it will be (i) done in a rather top down approach of “we need you to do this” and (ii) that those volunteers will be, intended, primarily, to run charity versions of what were government services.

Not that, probably, there is anything wrong with the latter in some fields, say in citizen advice, after school facilities for kids, and such. In fact, there are, more than likely, masses of services that would be better run by charities and volunteers, in both care, etc., and value for money.

Volunteers are, in general, enthusiastic as regards to what they do and highly motivated and care for the task; not something that could be said of every government worker in general. Many of the latter are just there, it would seem, to draw their salary and that's it. Clock in in the morning and out at night and home.

I am not saying that the “Big Society” idea and concept is bad. On the contrary! I think it is more than time that the people did get away from the notion that the government has to do everything for them.

In the centuries past when government was far away people did just that and they also looked out for one another. That's what community was and is all about. Over the last century or so, however, government has become ever bigger and ever more pervasive and invasive and people abdicated responsibility to the governments, local and central for this and that, in the same way that the abdicated and delegated the upbringing of their children to the state in the form of the school system. People have come to look to the state to do for everything short of wiping their behinds.

When a neighborhood is, say, full of litter residents immediately complain to the council and demand that that is immediately cleaned and cleared. This litter is down to everyone who live in that neighborhood and thus should be the responsibility of the residents but such a thought would, in today's society, never enter their minds. “That's what we pay our taxes for,” is the usual outcry.

The grass verges in our roads needs cutting, they say, never even even considering that all they'd need to to is to take their mower to the verge in the front of their homes when they cut the lawn. Some do, I admit, but the great majority just scream at the council.

It is these little things that anyone could do, and would do, if but someone would start is and set the ball rolling that make a neighborhood a community.

The one thing that bothers me with David Cameron's “Big Society” idea is that it is government putting it forwards and it was not conceived at the grassroots level of society and could, therefore, be seen as a means for government to band aid the cuts.

What worries me, aside from the afore, is that despite all the rhetoric from Cameron and Clegg, the “Big Society” will not really empower communities and individuals to do things in their way and to do the things that are neede where the people live.

Real empowerment of people is something the British government has always been afraid of as it would mean people actually doing and being able to do things for themselves without government having the control.

If this is going to happen and they really want it then I guess the fires have gone out in hell and winter has arrived down there. I find that about as likely as Silvio Berlusconi becoming a communist.

Can you just imagine the people of the UK running their own affairs. This is a total anathema to the modern state and is something that politicians detest because it undermines their power and control over the people.

It would be really nice if we could reduce the state and its interference in our lives to what it really only should be but I am not about to hold my breath. Blue may suit me by way of color for clothing and such but not in face.

In addition to the state relinquishing the power that should not be its I am hard pressed to see the majority of the subjects of Her Majesty to actually do things for themselves, even if they had the “right” to do so, and for their community and for society as a whole.

Most are way too much in this “entitlement society” mode believing that they are entitled to this and that as a right and that they have to do nothing for themselves. After all, they say, we pay our taxes so therefore we are entitled to this all.

The idea of the “Big Society” – I just wish Cameron & Co had chosen a better term – have been implemented for years already in “alternative” communities up and down the country and around the globe and in so-called Transition Towns. It can be done but it cannot be decreed from the top like the “solidarity” idea in former Soviet Russia and the former German Democratic Republic (East Germany), for instance, though, to a great degree it did work, the “solidarity” thing, I mean. Many people of the former German Democratic Republic hunger back to that now.

Despite the Ministry of State Security (Stasi), etc., the GDR had a sense of community, it would seem, in most places, even in blocks of housing, and people looked after each other. I put this also down to the fact that there was no “keeping up with the Joneses” going on as things were, basically, all the same, and theoretically, everyone only could have the basic stuff that could be bought. Not that that always worked and was thus but... I digressed.

While, as I have said, I do like the very concept of the “Big Society” of empowering the people I have serious reservations that (i) this is going to work by having Whitehall tell us and (ii) that people believe that the state is there to do everything for them and that it is what they pay taxes for.

The point is that we should be (allowed to be) doing things for ourselves and not expect the state to do everything for us. But there are two sides here as well in that government has been telling us all the time to look to the “authorities” to do everything for us and the other one that, as I have said already, because they pay taxes, they are entitled to have everything done for them by the state.

The idea of the “Big Society”, sorry about the name, I didn't coin it, and the things it is supposed to achieve, I think, is good and the aims are great but I am not sure as to, and that is what I have been trying to say here, whether the government can get the people enthused about it.

If it would have been something that had originated in a broad demand from grassroots level then my scepticism would be less to nonexistent but as it comes, more or less from the top down and seen to primarily address the existing charities and such, I do not think that the people will follow. I hope I am wrong, but...

© 2011

Prime Minister launched the “Big Society”

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The British Prime Minister David Cameron on Monday, July 19, 2010, gave more detail on his vision for the Coalition Government’s Big Society agenda by outlining plans for a new Big Society Bank, and announcing the country’s first big society communities in Sutton, Windsor and Maidenhead, Eden Valley in Cumbria and Liverpool.

The Big Society Bank will ensure that all the money from dormant bank accounts made available to England is put to good use for the benefit of society. By expanding the social investment market place and helping to attract extra private sector investment it is expected that over time the Bank will generate hundreds of millions of pounds for charities, social enterprises and voluntary groups to fund social projects across the country, creating opportunities for social action and community involvement. As a wholesale organization, the Bank will invest in financial intermediaries in the social investment market, who in turn will increase access to finance for front-line, social organisations.

The question that I would like to ask though is how the monies will be allocated and who controls those. I just hope it will not be the local councils that will have the control of allocation and distribution.

The Prime Minister made the announcement to an audience of volunteers and social enterprise champions in Liverpool at the first in a series of planned Big Society events, alongside the Minister for the Cabinet Office Francis Maude, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles and Decentralisation Minister Greg Clark.

He also announced the country’s first big society communities in the London Borough of Sutton, Windsor and Maidenhead, Eden Valley in Cumbria and Liverpool itself.

These four areas will now receive targeted and tailored help from the Government to ensure they can overcome bureaucratic barriers and take greater responsibility for the decisions that affect the local area and local people.

But, the way it would appear, this is yet again something that the government “imposes” from above by targeting certain areas to start with and, as it would appear, via the local authorities.

Community does not equal local authority, does not equal local council. Community is something apart from that. Still, despite all the talk even the new coalition government does not get it.

Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude said that the launch event shows just how much of a difference a stronger society, where people do more for each other, can make.

And he continued: “The funds from the dormant bank accounts will enable us to start stimulating activity where there is none and also help existing charities, social enterprises and community organisations to make changes in their local areas.

“This is about a real cultural shift – we know that the era of big government, just tweaking things at the centre of power, didn’t work. We want to build a Big Society where local people feel empowered to bring about the changes they know their communities need and they come together to change the things they care about.”

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said: "We are turning Government upside down. Instead of imposing top-down diktats from Whitehall, we are asking people to tell us what they want to do to improve their lives. We will give communities the same support that we Ministers have - people in Government Departments to sort out the bureaucracy that stands in their way.

"No-one knows what's needed in Liverpool, Sutton, Eden Valley and Windsor and Maidenhead better than the people who live there. That is the essence of the Big Society - trusting people to know what needs doing, with Government enabling them instead of getting in their way."

So, instead of imposing top-down diktat from Whitehall it will be controlled by town hall, rather; or so it seems to me. That still is not giving power to the people. Local councils need reforming in a serious manner too so that – finally – the chief executive and directors become accountable to the people. They themselves, and not just councillors, must be made to stand for elections in a way that it is done in some other countries, including areas in the United States.

The four big society communities have already expressed interest in areas including:

• Making budget decisions at street-level

• Taking over local assets such as a community pub

• Delivering broadband to local communities

• Piloting the Government’s open-source planning reforms

• Taking responsibility for generating energy locally

• Deciding licensing rules locally

• Building a volunteer programme so they can keep local museums open for longer.

The Government is committed to give these communities all the support they need and is pledging the following measures:

• A firm commitment to respond constructively to every request made by the big society communities for new rights and powers to take control of their cities, towns, villages and neighbourhoods.

• Dedicated support from officials from the Department of Communities and Local Government to help the big society communities overcome and break down any barriers they encounter as they seek to take power and responsibility.

• A community organiser to help each community coordinate local support for, and involvement in, its plans.

The Government will continue to give new powers to neighbourhoods, including greater control over their finances and new rights to take over state-run services, and wants to hear from community groups and individuals who feel they are facing unreasonable barriers to making changes for the benefit of the local community.

Notes to Editors

1. The Big Society Bank will be an independent wholesale organisation that will work and invest its funds through existing financial intermediaries like social investors and community lenders, who in turn will increase access to finance for frontline, social organisations.

2. As well as private sector investment, it will be funded by dormant bank accounts as enabled by the Dormant Bank Accounts Act. These are deposits of money in bank and building society accounts that people have lost track of or forgotten about over a period of time. The Big Society Bank will ensure that all the money from dormant bank accounts made available to England is put to good use for the benefit of society.

3. The amount of funds available for distribution will be determined by the number of banks and building societies participating in the scheme, the success of the ongoing campaign to reunite individuals with their assets, and the sums held back for customer reclaim.

4. Our target is to establish the Bank by April 2011. A key milestone will be the creation of a Reclaim Fund to protect the interests of deposit holders, as required by the Dormant Bank Accounts Act. Co-operative Financial Services are currently in the process of submitting an application to the FSA to perform this role.

5. The four big society communities will be taking forward a range of ideas, which all come directly from proposals made by the people in those areas. They include

1. moving a community centre to a site chosen by the community; building a renewable energy generation project; a community buy out of a local pub; providing community broadband access (Cumbria/Eden Valley)

2. transparency of local spending decisions; participatory budgeting for parks budget; delegating budgets to streets; devolving further powers to parishes (Windsor & Maidenhead)

3. boosting volunteering at a number of key museums; creating a social enterprise to produce films and content for digital platforms; developing neighbourhood media and cultural activities in poorer areas (Liverpool).

4. establishing greater freedom to implement sustainable transport schemes and influence the provision of local public transport; identifying ‘place shaping’ champions who can build good practice in greener living; supporting the creation of a project involving young people that invests in the local community (Sutton).

The problem is that government still is not getting it. It is not local authorities that make a community, but diverse people do. It seems to make no difference as to whether it is a Labour government or a Tory one or a coalition one of Tories and Whigs.

You cannot “create” communities in the way as the PM has announced that government is creating those new Big Society communities and then basing them in local council areas. My G-d! When will the governments of this country – and other countries – actually understand this?

The local authorities do not work, not as they are at present and basing this “Big Society” idea in that way in local authorities will not work. Councils waste resources and money and are top heavy. A change is needed and a completely new way of doping things.

Having elected heads of councils would be one idea, like for the Sheriff and Council chiefs in most places in the USA. And ideally they should have to stand for re-election every year or two. That way they would take much greater care of how the taxes are spent. Only then, really, are the people empowered. When they control who runs their local authority. And this is aside from elected local councillors.

Then, talking of taxes, the council tax must be collected and kept local. It has no business going to Whitehall first to be distributed back from there around the country.

This will, I am afraid, as per usual, just a load of hot air and nothing really beneficial. It is a dressing up of cuts in involving the voluntary sector instead of really and truly empowering the people to do things for themselves, including the grassroots policing of their areas.

People and governments in Britain just do not get it.

© 2010