Phil Redmond approaching minor national treasure status means his piece on the Big Society in Liverpool is at least worthy of consideration, and is in fact very thought provoking, as is Tessa Jowell’s piece on the Labour response to the idea, although I find the big picture issues highlighted worthy, but somehow lacking in our response to the idea on the ground as it fast approaches.
We have had long enough to kick the concept of the big society around, but it just won’t quite settle anywhere; despite the best efforts of the coalition to undermine their leader’s flagship policy through local and central government cuts that have the potential to hugely undermine the very third sector that they plan to thrust to the fore [seen today in the news of Eric Pickles showdown with the powers on trying to protect the voluntary sector], there are no signs yet that the big society is going to drop off the end of the world, and we had better start dealing with it.
The Labour line, as demonstrated by Ms. Jowell, is to talk about the ‘good society’, roughly the same but somehow better, if only for not being tory; but this is of minimal consequence and really won’t wash; the concept of the big / good / more involved / more civic society is one that, however gimmicky it may be made to sound at times, is a concept that will resonate with people who are basically doing it already, and have been all their lives. If they feel that the government are somehow on their side, even with scant financial help in ‘tough times’, there are people up and down the land who will respond positively, and we need a more coherent narrative to show we are firmly behind them too, and that the tories are turning their hard work into political capital.
Where we have Labour run councils, like in the big society vanguard city of Liverpool, they cannot be seen to be obstructionist to the concept of the third sector delivering public services at all levels, where the will and capability is there, and where it may well be more efficient. In all areas, Labour Councillors and activists should be involved and supportive of all positive community endeavours, after all if they elect us they are ‘our’ communities, and if they don’t we need to show them that they ought to. In the south in particular, where in so many places we are beyond thinly spread, you had better believe that every tory and liberal flyer will have a councillor or candidate living the ‘big society dream’, and if we are to make inroads we must be on the bandwagon too; in reality there are members who are at the heart of their communities and always have been, we just need to sell it as well as the others surely will. Much is written on this subject and I dearly hope it translates into visibility on the ground.
Whether the term Big Society is here to stay or goes on the summer breeze, it is, at it’s most basic, about being a good person, involved with your community, and willing to muck in, and that idea is very much here to stay, and we all know people who embody it; we may just need to grit our teeth and embrace the trappings rather than risk being labelled as anti-community.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/07/big-society-volunteering-eric-pickles
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEoin Clarke writes about his own personal experiences of the big society over at the Green Benches. He used to argue like you do, but has since changed his mind. It is worth reading the comments too and also a good place to debate AV. (http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.com/2011/02/big-society-is-dead.html).
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your blog. You make a good point well. Individuals should be encouraged to participate in society.
ReplyDeleteYou say that people need to believe that government are on their side, even with scant financial help in ‘tough times’, there are people up and down the land who will respond positively, and we need a more coherent narrative to show we are firmly behind them as well as the Tories.
I think we can do one better than the government here, who I believe are using the big society as a fig leaf to hide behind. The difference between the Conservative and my own vision of what the big society should be is that the former does not include the contribution of the unions. Nor does it compell local councils to make funds available nor employers the facility time.
In his opening address to biennial national conference last year, Prospect General Seretary, Paul Noon, pointed out that "seven million trade union members like ourselves have been doing the big society for over 200 years" (http://www.prospect.org.uk/news/newsstory.php?news=685).
Dan Whittle, writing at Compass, argues that "If the Coalition was really serious about creating a society of volunteers - you might think they'd be drawing experience from the unions - the original catalysts of community engagement, empowerment, and social action. And rewarding and stimulating their activism by extending facilities time - the time which allows reps to take part in union activities. But they aren't and that's another reason why the Big Society has a big problem." (http://www.compassonline.org.uk/news/item.asp?n=11863http://www.compassonline.org.uk/news/item.asp?n=11863)
With redundancies, pay freezes, attacks on pensions and terms and conditions in both the public and private sectors (due to the knock-on effect) already present, worse is in store for workers in the UK. Government proposes to cancel the May Day bank holiday and are reviewing employment tribunals after employer groups have lobbyied to make it harder for employees to access justice. (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/columnists/routledge/2011/01/14/condems-are-scaremongering-over-union-strike-threats-115875-22847258/)
David Cameron spoke in parliament about how he is considering making strike action unlawful if less than 50% of all members (rather than just 50% of those voting) vote in favour. This is an extroadinarily anti-democratic proposal that strikes at the heart of the big society coming from a prime minister whose own party was elected off of the back of the votes of only 23% of the population.
Furthermore, funding for charitable groups is being cut by local authorities across the country. Only last month, my mother had to disband a group that she administered to provide services for adults with learning difficulties. Public transport, social services, libraries and access to woodlands are amongst the many important areas subject to cuts that are having a detrimental impact on both service users and the ability and willingness of those in a position to be able to contribute towards the big society and fill some of the gap left by swinging government cuts to local government budgets.