How 'good' is Big Society?
The disagreement in Westminster over the execution of David Cameron’s “passion” for Big Society was not reflected in a lively debate on 14 February between two think-tanks: ResPublica (Conservative – ‘Big’ Society) and Progress (Labour – ‘Good’ Society).
In fact, both parties were, in the words of Francis Maude, mainly in ‘violent agreement.’
Power to the communities
The incumbent Cabinet Office minister reminded delegates that “big government” had created “a greater dependency”, and had been “managing symptoms of failure”. Big Society would therefore:
a) Build on the rich tradition of civil society organisations for voluntary action and charities along with the growing trend of entrepreneurs that “see a problem and find innovative ways to support this.” The launch of Big Society Bank will provide new sources of capital to grow these.1
b) Decentralise – ending the “command and control view of the world.” Power is to be pushed back to local authorities and beyond to communities so they can shape their collective lives.
c) Progressively reform public services with public sector monopolies eroded so that more agile providers get a chance. He added that none of these things makes the world a “transformedly different place” but things like the Big Society Bank, payment by results (for example, the Work Programme) and the National Citizen Service for 16 year-olds would, bit by bit, make a strong and better society.
“We want a more cohesive society”, he said. “It won’t happen overnight, it won’t be done solely by the government – it will be done by working together.”
But don’t lose the infrastructure?
Without actually accusing Maude of stealing Labour’s ideas, shadow charities minister Tessa Jowell maintained there was little new in the good bits of the Conservative flagship policy. Under Labour, community assets had been transferred to communities, parents had forced new schools to be created, and foundation trusts had given people a say in how key parts of the NHS were run. “Even the Big Society Bank is built on Labour legislation”, she said.
While there was much both parties were at one on – such as the need for a big/good society in the first place and the empowerment of communities, she disagreed that the state and civil society were ‘antithetical’. Most charities would probably have agreed that while the state should not create communities it needs to be there to provide a basic infrastructure – to step in when necessary. As Jowell put it, “the community when it can, the state when it must.”
Francis Maude closed the proceedings by sharing his own passion – public sector mutuals, the groups of public sector workers coming together to form a co-operative to deliver a public service. “When you talk to them, most of them are not financially motivated, its about a sense they can exercise their public service vocation in a way that is responsive to the needs of the people they are serving. So they are free from having a good idea disappearing into the committee structure never to be heard of again. That’s the Big Society, bring it on”, he said.
www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/404970_SocialInvestmentMarket_acc.pdf
1. See the detailed article on Big Society Bank on page 33 of this issue www.respublica.org.uk
Author: Clarissa Dann
Clarissa Dann was the editor of Caritas as well as an HR and management online service,he People Bulletin until July 2011.
She is now the editor of the specialist trade finance magazine, Trade and Forfaiting Review which can be viewed at www.tfreview.com but does write on charity finance and investment from time to time.
Clarissa has a background in legal and professional publishing, as well as business journalism and holds an MBA from
There are no comments on this article. Be the first to comment.