Introduction

1.1.    The ‘Big Society’ is a Government agenda seeking to decentralise power and give greater say in services and decision making to people through encouraging an expansion of community led initiatives.

1.2.    This Briefing Paper provides:

• A short background to the Big Society
• An insight to the key elements of the Big Society through the limited documentation released by government and speeches from David Cameron and government ministers
• A look at what the rhetoric doesn’t disclose of how the ‘Big Society’ might operate
• Consideration of the criticism of the agenda and concept
• Public perceptions
• Ponderables of the Big Society
• Conclusions

Background

2.1.    The Big Society concept was discussed by David Cameron as far back as his election to leader of the Conservative Party, but the earliest documentary insight to what the ‘Big Society’ might be like came with the Conservatives Green Paper of June 2008, ‘A Stronger Society: Voluntary Action for the 21st Century1 which also covered their vision of the future Third Sector. Further insight came when David Cameron revealed his vision for the Big Society at the annual Hugo Young lecture, stating that ‘the state must take action to remake society’ and ‘the Big Society demands mass engagement’.

2.2.    It was during the 2010 election campaign that the Big Society concept started to be examined in more detail. It featured as a significant part of the Conservative Party manifesto and campaign, initially being used as a political sound bite ‘building a Big Society’ in association with ‘broken Britain’, which the Conservative campaign considered the Labour ‘legacy’2.

1 The Green Paper can be downloaded at: http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Green%20Papers/Localism-Policy-Paper.ashx?dl=true

2 David Cameron Big Society Speech 31 march 2010: http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2010/03/David_Cameron_Our_Big_Society_plan.aspx

2.3.    The Big Society failed to enthuse the floating voters and as the campaign wore on we heard less of this in favour of other themes like the national debt, immigration and the NHS. The media were also more concerned with other themes, predominantly because there was more detailed and understandable arguments and documentation to compare what the political parties were campaigning on;  the vagaries of the Big Society giving too little for journalists to chew on.

2.4.    Surprisingly, and in spite of those vagaries, on 18 May 2010 the Big Society was part of the first major policy announcement of the new coalition government. It was accompanied by the publication of a short outline that remains the primary guide to the agenda at this time, titled as Building the Big Society3. This announcement was made jointly by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, the latter stating that his former criticism of the Big Society had been due to not understanding that the two parties had been using ‘different words’ that mean ‘the same thing’.

2.5.    The announcement was followed, on 19 May 2010, by a consultation meeting with community leaders invited to No.10. These included Martha Lane Fox, the IT entrepreneur who runs a charitable foundation, Nat Wei (now Lord Wei), the Government’s advisor on the Big Society, Camila Batmanghelidjh, of Kids Co, which works with young people, Ray Mallon, the Mayor of Middlesbrough, and Rob Owen from St Giles Trust. Their meeting was, as part of the Big Society, to discuss ways to encourage community action, boost volunteering and set up a new ‘National Citizens Service’ for 16 year olds. Mr Cameron stated, ‘We know the best ideas come from the ground up.

An insight to the key elements of the Big Society

3.1.    As stated above, documentary detail for the Big Society is in short supply with structure and methodology non evident at present. The published Big Society agenda is very brief with the suggestion that detail will be added in the coming months. To date such detail has taken a back seat to deciding    upon  and  implementing  the  cutbacks  that  have  affected government departments, several of which will be involved in the Big Society, though we did see announcement of the first areas to benefit from the Big Society programme. With the announcements that some departments must slash costs by as much as 40% one can’t see how this augers well for the more ambitious elements of the Big Society.

3 Cabinet Office guide can be found at: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/407789/building-big-society.pdf

3.2.    The main concepts that form the Big Society include:

• Devolving power to communities and local government
• Giving financial autonomy to local government and returning their powers over housing and planning
• A general ‘power of competence’ for councils
• A ‘community right to buy’ scheme and a ‘right to bid’ for communities to take over threatened local facilities.
• Powers for neighbourhoods to determine how their areas are shaped
• A greater role in the delivery of public services for community facing organisations and businesses; supporting charities, social enterprises and cooperatives to develop into service delivery
• Establishing an independent ‘Big Society Bank’, funded from unclaimed bank assets in accounts dormant for 15 years or more, which is estimated will generate up to £300 million to support community initiatives and provide social enterprises with start-up funding and support where they bid for government contracts or work that delivers services under a ‘payment by results’ model
• Creating initiatives that will encourage greater charitable giving and philanthropy
• Support for the creation and expansion of mutuals, co-operatives, charities and social enterprises
• Supporting public sector workers who seek to create employee- owned co-operatives and bid to take over the services they deliver
• Encouraging greater social action and volunteering within communities – promoted through the launch of a national ‘Big Society Day’ (though the ‘Big Society Day’ seemed to be increasingly down played in July and early August 2010). This includes supporting neighbourhood groups and the training of a new generation of community organisers.
• The introduction of a National Citizen Service for 16 year-olds that encourages them to develop socially responsible skills and become community leaders.
• The creation of a new ‘right to data’ that allows government held data to be requested and used by the public and will oblige the police to publish detailed local crime statistics every month

3.3.    Many have cited the US influence in the agenda. Certainly there are similarities with the model developed in Portland, Oregon. A model of community organisation was created in the 1950s by Saul Alinsky. It has gone on to train and develop generations of community organisers including the now President of the US, Barack Obama whose work covered the latter 1980s and early 1990s.

3.4.    Whilst hard copy may be lacking rhetoric has been flowing. David Cameron was more detailed in his speech in Liverpool on 19 July 2010 with the announcements of the launch of the ‘Big Society Bank’ and the first four big society communities4. The speech added more to what the government say they are looking for and to some extent the reasoning behind why, giving examples in the areas selected, but critics rightly pointed out that it remained evasive, at best, about how the Big Society would be financed while cutbacks that are becoming more draconian will leave clear shortfalls in funds that will not be sufficiently alleviated by the ‘Big Society Bank’s’ sources as they stand. Lord Wei had acknowledged in an interview with the Independent on 23 may 2010 that the National Citizen service alone would need something in the range of £800 million5.

3.5.    The speech also failed to address the issue of ‘best practice’; how would new community led initiatives be monitored and by whom? Would local authorities need to pick up the burden of monitoring whilst being confronted by cutbacks themselves? Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, has become the Cabinet Office’s main spokesperson for the Big Society and has made a number of speeches and statements6.

3.6.    Like other Ministers his ‘theme’ remains ‘citizens get active’ quoting, ‘We need a Big Society, that derives its strength and compassion from the energy and vigour of millions of active citizens, formal and informal organisations independent of the state, and neighbourhoods where neighbourliness touches every life.’ His line, ‘We want local communities not only to have greater ownership of local problems, but to have more power to change them’ sparked the suggestion from one community leader, ‘Does that mean we can put the banks on trial for this mess, judge them and then hang them. Locally’!

4 David Cameron’s Big Society Agenda speech can be found at: http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2010/07/David_Cameron_Our_Big_Society_Agenda.a spx

5 The Independent interview with Lord Wei can be found at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/nat-wei-meet-mr-big-hes-in-charge-of-the-pms- social-revolution-1980490.html

6 Speeches from Francis Maude MP, Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General can be found at: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/search.aspx?search=francis+maude

A look at what the rhetoric doesn’t disclose of how the Big Society will operate

4.1.    As eluded to above most community practitioners and local authority personnel remain in the dark about how new community led initiatives might be monitored and assured of following ‘best practice’ principles. Lines  of  responsibility  have  yet  to  be  defined.  Indeed,  the  question remains for many whether the ‘best practice’ concept is to be amended or superseded in any way. The lack of written direction from government at this stage may be understandable given that we are only sixteen weeks into the new administration. But given the emphasis on the ‘Big Society’ at the Prime Minister’s and Deputy Prime Minister’s first announced on 18 May 2010 it may be viewed as worrying that no commitment has been given  to  when  such  directives will  be  in  place.  Could  it  be that  the government’s  desire  to  move  away  from  central  influence  could  be reflected in not giving directives of this nature?

4.2.    The  commitment  that  councils  will  be  given  a  ‘general  power  of competence’ remains an unknown quantity but could be part of how lines of responsibility and monitoring will be decided. This needs urgent clarification. Announcements by Chief Police Officers that cutbacks would reduce front line policing and lead to less police on the streets prompted one community representative to state, ‘Well if our anti-social youth aren’t controlled there will be chaos. Does it mean Cameron expects us to self- police. I don’t mind setting up a militia’.

4.3.    Paul Twivy, CEO of the Big Society Network7, who has been meeting with David Cameron, when speaking at a Consultation Institute Round Table event in London on 13 July 2010 focused more on the ‘street party’ aspect of the ‘Big Society’ and was unable at that time to answer questions about the role local authorities or others might play in keeping control on what people might try to undertake. Ironically, at this stage, consensus is that we need more direction from government to overcome the lack of information and prepare the ground work to create a ‘Big Society’, should there be one, rather than have less central government involvement. Clarification for local authorities is needed in order that they may create the platforms needed to support the Big Society whilst also working out how to implement cuts.

4.4.    Many  community  practitioners  would  point  out  that  arguably  the  Big Society was already happening but just hadn’t been defined in such terms. The localities that have been showcased as the first Big Society areas haven’t been chosen by accident. They have been selected because the

7 Further details regarding The Big Society Network can be found at: http://www.thebigsociety.co.uk projects discussed are meeting the criteria and visual image of what David Cameron seeks from the Big Society. The point here is that they were meeting that image before the Big Society, as are many projects around the UK. Critics suggest that the selection of these particular areas and projects is a cynical attempt at giving the Big Society credit for something that was already succeeding, to be held up as an example to others in days to come.

4.5.    A far better test might have been to have started in areas where there was little or nothing already happening but great need for social change. Those same  practitioners  also  point  out that people motivated to do volunteering and give up their time for their communities has never exceeded more than 5% of the population. It is a particular breed of person who will put others first for no or limited pay.

4.6.    The Big Society, as stated by Francis Maude, needs ‘millions of active citizens’. Is that reality? Since 1976 people of the UK have been well and truly sold the concept of self and acquisition. Arguably it has given rise to a culture of greed and often selfishness amongst far too many. Wealth has become status and you don’t get wealthy doing community work. Can we turn this around when we have little money to pay people to become community orientated? If so, over how many years is it likely to take whilst our highly influential media and advertising industry continues to appeal to our ‘self’ and ‘greed’?

Consideration of the criticism of the agenda and concept

5.1.    The  most  obvious  criticism  levelled  at  the  Big  Society  is  that  the government are seeking ‘something  for nothing’. It is echoed by the Opposition, many in public services and the majority of the Third sector. In his Liverpool speech on 19 July 2010 David Cameron denied the idea the Big Society is a fig leaf for swingeing cuts in public services. Unfortunately, on the same day Communities Secretary Eric Pickles stated that the Big Society was ‘unashamedly about getting more for less’.

5.2.    In defence of the government it can be argued that the Big Society agenda was one that the Conservative party were committed to long before it would be known that cuts would be as bad as they are, that, as a concept that began in 2005 and given form in 2008, the cuts in services could not have been anticipated. Is it therefore ideological? It might be fair to say that the government is after more for less but should we have not had the present economic situation and had a healthier economy would we have seen the Big Society introduced as complimentary to, or a realigning of, existing service provision from the Third Sector and Public Services. It is arguable.

5.3.    Another accusation has been that David Cameron wants to turn the clock back to how we were as a society in the 1950s, a reminder for some of Margaret Thatcher’s ‘Victorian values’. There is no doubt that the concept of ‘street parties’ to galvanise community spirit harks back to such days but surely this is as far as it goes in this respect, it openly looks for modern and innovative ideas. The government might argue that borrowing a little from the past to cement more modern components isn’t worthy of the blanket criticism from some that that this is ‘all retro’.

5.4.    The financing of the Big Society is a problem for everyone. There has been no hard copy of projections for the extent to which Big Society objectives are expected, over what time periods and with what budgets to be allocated. The ‘Big Society Bank’ which is expected to draw upon around £300 million from dormant accounts isn’t sufficient to finance the ‘change of culture’ that the Big Society needs to be successful. Indeed, as mentioned above, Lord Wei, the Government’s advisor on the ‘Big Society’ alludes to the fact that the budget required for the National Citizen service alone will need almost three times this amount, though over what time period is unclear. This is against the back drop of cuts that at the end of July saw £25 million of funding withdrawn from volunteering projects, prompting Terry Ryall, CEO of V, that lost £8 million, to say the cuts were ‘a big blow for the Big Society’. Tessa Jowell, as Labour spokesperson, said, ‘There is a big and growing hole in the Big Society narrative…’ So far the government has said that volunteering lies at the core of the Big Society. Depriving those who generate and train volunteers is surely illogical. If one bears in mind that from each community area (there is no definition  available  for  size  of  ‘area’  at  present)  a  person  is  to  be nominated  to  be  trained  at  government  expense  as  a  ‘community organiser’ one is left imagining that such ‘organisers’ might yet have to cover ‘areas’ the size of which might make the role impossible. With government not offering any sums at present, perhaps understandably being preoccupied with how cuts can be made, it remains for others to speculate and conclude that the Big Society will lack finance and need to be ‘watered down’.

5.5.    There have been a number of critical insights that might help in building a picture of how to work with and around the ‘Big Society’ agenda. It has been pointed out that the charitable foundations and the broader third sector have yet to be drawn by government into a consultative process that might lead to ‘joined up’ thinking. However, on 1 July Greg Clark, Minister for Decentralisation, and Andrew Stunnell, Parliamentary Under Secretary for State wrote to MPs asking them to support ‘officials’ in organising local round tables where the Big Society should be discussed amongst community innovators, activists and social entrepreneurs. The purpose here being to gain insights to community successes and generate ideas and innovation to support the Big Society as reality. It gives an element of the impression that ‘it’s being made up as we go along’. Yet is that not what the new government seeks… the unknown elements that can bring about innovation as opposed to the closeted thinking and restrictive ways they would argue (perhaps not correctly) that are a legacy of New Labour. That would be in keeping with the message Paul Twivy, CEO of The Big Society Network, tried to get across at The Consultation Institute round table in July.

Public perceptions

6.1.    Away from those who work in public services and the Third Sector the general public remain relatively unaware of what the Big Society is and how it will affect them. Random discussion with people from communities who are not engaged in community projects draws blank looks and comments such as, ‘Is it a rival to the X Factor?’ or ‘Is it to do with cutbacks by the Government?’ Only a few display any understanding and they are mostly cynical because there isn’t much in writing yet, and many retain the cynicism of spoken politics and spin that had developed in the decade before the election.

6.2.    Those in the Third Sector and Public services display a greater knowledge but because of their fear of cuts and redundancy many remain cynical that it is just an exercise in ‘more for less’.

6.3.    Those in larger charities and social enterprises seem to see both sides of the coin, the most innovative and dynamic amongst them eyeing potential opportunity in service delivery whilst being guarded and suspicious of where this might go. One might conclude not enough is being done to sell the Big Society to people at present and it therefore risks failure.

Ponderables of the Big Society

7.1.    One has to ask ‘do we really know what UK society is today’ and if not, or should we have doubts about it, can we develop a ‘Big Society’ as defined by David Cameron? Since the Conservative party last held power (today they share power with the LibDems in Coalition) the country has changed significantly. The Conservative accusation against Labour at the election was that they created a ‘broken society’, yet such sound bites didn’t have an impact on the majority of people. Many look back at the late ‘nineties’ and early ‘noughties’ as a time when our society seemed to function well. Today the makeup of our society is changing. Arguably it has been changing since the 1960s as social perceptions and freedoms changed. Are we still in a phase of transition from former colonial power to a smaller modern state? If so, how much of the Big Society concept is taking into consideration       this  change?  After  all,  regardless  of  the  desire  to decentralise and empower people, are we not being dictated a concept of what a Big Society is by this new coalition? Is that not centralised control, when an idea is imposed without consultation?

7.2.    What consultation has taken place with the peoples of the UK of what they want a ‘Big Society’ to be and how to achieve it? Street parties are all well and good, and can be looked upon with nostalgia for the elderly, but young people have no such concept and our minorities that make up some 8% or more of the population have no such heritage. There are streets in the UK where British National Party (BNP) and English Defence League (EDL) members live with Somali and other minority immigrants. Can we honestly see them being chummy at street parties when we have yet to resolve race issues? Can the majority of English, Welsh, Scots and Irish actually do this with their ethnic neighbours in the way the ‘Big Society’ asks where a minority neighbour wishes to retain his culture or faith?

7.3.    When we talk about communities developing that community spirit have we considered how far apart our young people have grown in their culture from that of the elderly? Consider Radio 1 v. Radio 4, reality TV and fame obsession v. a good novel or romantic fiction, binge drinking v. a cup of tea, anti-social gangs hanging on street corners v. people too scared to go out, joy riding v. a stroll in the country. That isn’t to diminish all young people, but a minority often spoil it for the majority and can certainly intimidate them. Can street parties be the beginning of change? Or can you envisage street parties being trashed by local hoodlums? Do we need laws in place that help to support the Big Society first and do we need to do work to mentally change our culture from ‘self first’ before we think of financing initiatives. Without doubt it is these very problems that are part of what the Big Society seeks to address, but do you put a wrestler in the ring with one arm tied behind his back?

7.4.    There are also contradictions that need thinking about. David Cameron recently expressed an idea that he would like to put into practice, the idea of  forcing  those  who  become  more  affluent  from  social  housing  into private renting or to buy their own properties. Though this is just an idea at present it would mean that the most affluent and possibly the most innovative of those in social housing would have to leave when they reach an income threshold. What impact would that have on a local community when it is likely such people might be the leadership in community projects? They often are.

Conclusion

8.1.     Without doubt there is still a great need for clarification on many aspects of how the Big Society might work. There has been some innovative and maybe even revolutionary thinking in developing the Big Society concept, and clearly some of it is worthwhile. But at present there is too little in the way of safeguards and accountability… essential for success. Basically ministers have yet to join the dots together. It might be that community practitioners should be pushing for answers to these and other questions. As a concept there is clearly some merit in what it seeks to achieve but the process of how government came to the conclusions it did about why it would work and should be introduced remain hidden, as does evidence of meaningful consultation with those who would be expected to bear the brunt of responsibility to deliver – mainly the man and woman at grass roots level in the communities.

8.2.    The Big Society is culture change. It is branded as ‘power and influence back to the people’ and ‘people taking the initiative’ on behalf of their communities. But before that can work in the way intended don’t people need to be ‘reprogrammed’. It is asking people to think differently and with government commitment to only retrain one person per area (areas are yet to be defined) it leaves this concept vulnerable in two ways:

1. It took  a  considerable  amount  of  change,  marketing,  media  and influences to change UK culture from the street party loving one of the post WWII years to what it is today. Unless there is investment in ‘culture change’, changing our thinking first, it is naive to believe that a government directive can alter the way we behave, and
2. Without that investment in changing our thinking communities will be very vulnerable to the growing private organisations that specialise in service provision and can be quite ruthless in their wooing and discarding of community partners.

Biography

Nicholas was raised and educated in Bristol attending Queen Elizabeth’s Hospital and Bristol Polytechnic (University of the West of England) where he studied Business. He achieved early successes developing businesses for Adia group subsidiaries before becoming involved in online auction development with Aspinall Holdings, Antiqnet and Corecollector (Switzerland).

In 2002 Nicholas began supporting minorities as a voluntary director of Bristol Muslim Cultural Society. He has subsequently utilised his commercial skills providing specialised support to the third sector in capacity building, services delivery and performance management whilst offering community engagement training and effective monitoring systems to the public sector. His work continues through the recently established CICs  Aisco  (www.aisco.co.uk) and  Amnas (www.amnas.co.uk).

This is the 23^rd Briefing Paper; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement