Like many in the sector I was busy last Friday bashing out a response to the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) inquiry into the Government’s proposals for the “Big Society”
Below is a summary of some of the ideas I was trying to get across in order of the questions asked (the questions weren't very promising but that never stopped anyone giving an opinion) :)
Lame question #1: A definition of what the ‘Big Society’ is or should be
The definition of Big Society should be contested at defined at the local level by local people. Inevitably governments of all descriptions will seek to provide an overall framework hence the ‘Big Society’ as it currently features and is debated. In community development parlance Big Society is hegemonic, i.e. it is a political and ideological construct whereby power elites seek to shape the way the rest of us live. However this government descriptor merely shows the way, rather than ‘being’ the way. This is something government is alive to and appears to fully appreciate that local action is what matters hence there should be no final, once and for all definition but rather a purposive inquiry based on activity and learning. The collective action of community groups will be the true test and the most fitting definition. End of.
Lame question #2: The impact and consequences of reductions in public expenditure
They will be disastrous. It is hard to emphasis just how unfair it is that the profligacy of irresponsible banking practice coupled to bailout by taxpayers, followed by swinging public sector cuts passed on to the voluntary and community sector (VCS) as even more disproportionately high cuts: unfair but also actively harmful of the Big Society. Our part of the VCS, which is mainly smaller community groups, did not benefit as much as should have happened from the previous government’s increase in support and spending. In fact there is evidence via the Office of the Third Sector Third Sector Review 2007, that amidst overall growth, smaller groups got smaller and poorer. The vested interest of larger VCS bodies is something that this government has rightly been critical of, and by extension the failure of public sector spending to get results on the ground. However, flawed as public sector expenditure may have been, it was better than the little or nothing that is now defining our national life. The bulk of Big Society groups will be small community groups, who usually run on very little money BUT require support from both the funded VCS and local statutory agencies. At the present time, due to cuts, the support community groups need, the nurturing and encouragement provided by specialist community workers and agencies, is disappearing, and with it, the hope of realistically being able to build a big society.
Lame question #3: Delivering local public services: volunteering
The VCS has always delivered public services, picked up unmet need and innovated. However volunteering is not a substitute for public services and not everything is a market.
Crucially, for volunteers to take up service opportunities they would need significant levels of support and investment which at a time of massive cuts is simply not happening. Hence the probability that the numbers of people volunteering will decline, as usually happens at time of austerity. The more probable result is that private sector firms like SERCO and CAPITA, who’s CEOs earn far more than CEOs of local councils, will benefit from the desire to transfer services away from the state. This may lead to a smaller State but it won’t of itself build the Big Society, which can only grow from the bottom up, by the collective action of community groups, not large corporate brands.
The conflation of volunteering with services is misleading: volunteering arises for many reason, but rarely from a desire to play businessman or bureaucrat. It may be attractive precisely for its informality and lack of contractual ties. Volunteers choose to volunteer and were volunteering to become compulsory and tied to an all but state sanctioned means of service delivery the probability is that people will choose ‘not’ to volunteer because the ethos of volunteering will have been lost.
Lame question #4: Delivering local public services: commissioning
Commissioning has been a boon for a minority of groups in the VCS and often divisive elsewhere. It has led to a greater incidence of structural inequality between large and small groups, whereby ‘winner takes all’ leaving the most local groups without resource. On recent occasions the coalition government has this kind of vested interest but has yet to articulate how rolling out increasing rounds of commissioning can address what it has termed ‘differential capacity’ i.e. the fact that the majority of VCS groups will never get near a commissioning process because larger bodies will in effect exclude them and deploy inappropriate and unwieldy processes.
Stipulations that encourage and enforce greater accountability of ‘contract ready’ VCS bodies might address some of the problems, whereby priority is given to commissioned groups who can prove they are passing down actual resource to smaller groups, rather than building their own capacity. Likewise investment in local coalition and consortium building, whereby scores of local groups can come together as one entity in order to bid, may be a solution but requires community development and related work t o support it. For example, we know of numerous isolated and individual tenant and resident groups, run by local people and in contact with thousands more residents. Were they to combine in order to take on a housing commissioned piece of work, in one stroke, the big society comes closer to realization, whereas a bid from a large unknown corporate brand drives it further out of the hands of local people.
One of the difficulties with the big society approach is that it seems oblivious of the enormous differences between national charities, community and neighbourhood organisations, and informal groups, lumping them all together as one ‘sector’. The experience of voluntary organisations over recent years is that only a few large ones are in a position to handle contracts of any scale.
Lame question #5: Public service mutuals
There is merit in this idea but it in no way ameliorates the scale of the public sector cuts and requires a great deal of attention in how employees could manage a difficult process of change. There are examples of large former council run mutuals that are not especially empowering to their staff or well thought of by the public and whilst it would be unfair to name them, there is nothing inherent in the model that would ensure an improved service, despite some of the claims made by Res Publica. If staff is forced to take up opportunities or face unemployment this kind of Hobson’s choice will not be the foundation for a happier more motivated workforce, so the detail and circumstances around each PSA are key.
Lame question #6: Governance and accountability
With regard to governance and accountability of social enterprises and co-operatives, the jury is still out. Co-operatives have a long history of radical and progressive achievements but vary greatly in their governance from being deeply democratic to mere shells of business expedience. The more recent conflation of social enterprise has no one formula though the insistence of some on promoting business values over and above social objectives is a cause for concern since they then become ideological vehicles that promote the mistaken belief that individuals are feckless and lazy because they are not sufficiently entrepreneurial.
There is a wider issue about the governance and accountability relating to the Entire big society project as picked up by ‘our society’ in their response to you, which we hope you will address positively.
Lame question #7: Enabling or managing?
The semantics of this distinction may be lost on many people but it is clearly a case of both / and. Ideally a stronger civil society, led by the collective action of small community groups, who are 80% of all civil society anyway (!) would see leadership transfer from public bodies to local people. However for a stronger civil society to emerge the transition will not occur magically but must be prepared for by ensuring local public bodies are able to oversee increasing transfers of power and resource over a long time period. This is because most community groups are not in a position to replace the local State or even ideologically predisposed to do so, being under the impression that their taxes cover certain matters. Were community groups, as the leading civil society hence big society constituency, able to take on greater roles, they would need support typically from local bodies. Thus the answer to the question is public bodies need to both enable CSOs (civil society organizations) but also that this support needs a greater degree of management than is currently envisaged. It will not be possible for Councils, Primary Care Trusts, Housing Associations, Job Centre Plus or local Police bodies to ‘enable’ the big society if they do not have any resource left to do so.
Lame question #8: The role of local authorities
Under the current unwritten constitutional arrangements local government has ‘no right to exist’ as articulated by the Widdicombe Commission. This is because Parliament is sovereign. Until we have a serious debate about the constitution and governance of this country any debate on the superficial role of councils risks being undermined by this overwhelming political reality – namely that councils are a creature of central government not matter how many localism bills tweak the edges of this understanding. It might therefore be helpful to look at how local councils could become stronger relative to central government because it is unlikely that weak councils will feel empowered and enabled to pass power down to local people, if their own experience is based on a position of weakness and compliance, of having to look upwards to central control from Whitehall and Westminster rather than downwards to local people.
Stronger councils need a real power of general competence, not the play on words in the current localism bill. They need to raise a higher per cent age of their income from local taxation; at present around 75% of their funds come from the centre with often less than 25% raised locally, for this later figure to match European levels it would need to rise from 25 to 50%.
The mandate from local elections should have greater currency to offset the local democratic deficit whereby voter turnout is chronically low. For local elections to appear worth voting for, local people would need to be convinced their vote would go to someone with real as opposed to imagined power. The role of local authorities therefore needs to be grounded more in principles of democracy and an autonomous role distinct from the centre rather than the usual framing of delivery of local services, which becomes a code for a subordinate and disempowered role.
Lame question #9: Potential conflicts and postcode lotteries
Big Society appears to welcome conflict to some degree via its endorsement of Alinsky but it would be advised to look beyond the highly partial contract model of 5,000 part time organizers to the actually existing wealth of experience of 20,000 community development workers and similar numbers of youth workers active in the VCS but equally often in councils, housing associations and health bodies. Unfortunately the Office for Civil Society (Neil Smith) recently said that it was ‘not prepared to have the debate’ in regard to the links to be made between community workers and future community organizers. This highly prejudicial attitude is self defeating and has to be reversed. OCS’ willful and active disregard for community development is indicative of a narrow vision unable to unleash all the talents. In the past CD has proved adept at creative approaches to conflict through its own radical and transformative models – it has been prepared to be political unlike many of the wider VCS palliatives, so an appreciation of this tradition would be timely.
With regard to postcode lotteries this can be offset by careful and considered planning but remains a considerable concern to be addressed to ensure the principle of fairness is transmitted to all.
Conclusion
The concern must be that in a climate of cuts big society lacks credibility because it is seen as having an ulterior motive – rather than all being in it together, the rules are applied differently across the sectors. Bankers get bonuses, the Public Sector gets cut and the VCS, a net loss of funding and is likewise diminished. In this way local people get less and less support, leading to a smaller, impoverished and diminished society.
If the vision is for local people to build the big society this has to start with investment in small community groups using the skills and resource of community organizations including councils.
The argument is as follows:
1. Big Society = stronger civil society (but not necessarily a much smaller state)
2. Civil society = small community groups (at least 600,000 of the 900,000 CSOs in the NCVO Almanac come under this category along with a majority of charities receiving under £10,000 a year)
3. Small community groups need investment and appropriate support – the current cuts mean less support hence less community action
4. The bias towards social enterprise and a view of the sector as a market, hence the community rights, will bias the new resources ending up in the hands of larger corporate bodies and further weaken smaller CSOs who, without support and investment, will lose out on ‘opportunities’ that arise
5. If government wants to pass power away from Whitehall and Westminster, local government needs far greater powers and the ablility to raise a higher proportion of its own local income, as a prerequisite to stronger civil society, hence big society = smaller central state but stronger local state
Sunday, 20 March 2011
Thursday, 24 February 2011
The Big Society as Shock Doctrine: Risk, Disruption, Corporate Reengineering (and BS)
Following the announcement of the contract to deliver the Community Organisers programme the BS takes another twist
Marilyn Taylor's book on public policy in the community is something I always turn to, for good sense about policy and there are lots of choice words in the book about power and the way ideology tends to lead policy
Two things briefly on Marilyn Taylor's book - one is the phrase she uses early on about whether an actual policy is a 'window of opportunity or window dressing' rang a bell for me - the perenial concern. Are we being conned again? Secondly her simple threefold categorisation of the options we have as practitioners - to be optimistic, pessimistic or pragmatic
I tend to go with pragmatism but ...
The thing is that these three things are a process; a bit like bereavement -denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance
Well something for sure is dying - but some of the steps in the royal road to principlled pragmatism are in danger of being short circuited judging by some of the discourse in our sector
Paulo Freire talked about three forms of thinking: magical thinking aka we are all in it together; naive thinking aka there are some opportunities to make it work and critical thinking nuff sed
Clearly the VCS does not like winner takes all
Three recent musings are interesting:
1) Julian Dobson's post on respublica
2) Toby Blume's blog
3) And a bit further back in time CEO of Esmee Fairbairn's opinion piece
In different ways we can discern a pattern in each of the three; it will be painful but fast forward the pragmatism and good things can still happen
I'm not so sure; it may well be that we're crossing a rubicon - something is being lost that can't be wished back again - not all change is good
Julian thinks we need to trust society to find solutions to its own problems but society, even if we leave it as vague as that, civil society ain't gonna move on this agenda without proportionate investment from the state, i.e. thru our money as taxpayers money recycled back again to ourselves, those of us who don't avoid our taxes offshore that is.
The wholesale swallowing of small state ideology is worrying.
I speak as no particular fan of the central or local state, but the idea that the increasing numbers of poorer people (poverty is going up) can simultaneously sort things like running their own services and running libraries is dangerous nonsense - and this is the sharp end of the logic that flows from such thinking - be careful what you wish for
The desire to 'rescue the big society' is laudable by generating 'ideas' and 'our society' is a wonderful resource; but it also seems to be partially ducking out of the battle for these same ideas.
What exactly are we talking about?
Is it ideas that can ameliorate the effects of disporortionate cuts or ideas to ensure an elected government doesn't run away with the idea that even though there's plenty of money for bailing out the banks, its old fashioned to expect the same consideration be extended to its most needy citizens. Do you really want to be supporting what is in effect a welfare state for the (super) rich?
Toby sees BS as a risky thing and notes the government's desire to 'disrupt' the 'vested interests' of the sector. But his analysis stops short of what might be considered unacceptable risk of the kind written about by Naomi Kline in her recent book - the shock doctrine whereas having been willing to give the benefit of the doubt for some period I'm more inclined to be less sanguine about the risk and disruption.
Is the community organisers programme really 'the best shot we've had for many years'? The scale of the cuts to the public and VCS would appear to make it impossible to say such things with any confidence - fig leaf and cuts, would be the more common analysis
With regard to 'community development' as a 'close relative to community organising' - Office for Civil Society have stated they are not prepared to have the debate about the two things - CD and CO - even though there are reckoned to be 20,000 CD workers (DCLG CD Challenge), x4 as many as CO's.
Why not bring CD together? Because it is ideologically problematic - CD has a commitment to social justice and collective action; community organising has done great things but it is often highly formulaic which may suit control freaks but not resonate with the messiness of communities as they really exist (jury is still out for me on that one)
Finally Dawn Austwick, as a funder, wants to stay in the game - she advises that we need to 'hold our nerve, play clever and long' (and swallow the cuts uncritically?)
It is very true that there are new solutions out there, fantastic that Dawn meets' passionate and clever people doing interesting things across the UK' but... but ... if the VCS and public sector is going to be as mashed up as we know it will be, that really won't count for much - as a funder the medicine that might need to be proscribed is for campaigning not back door privatisation which is where community ownership could easily end up.
So of course we'll all be pragmatic and working hard, goes without saying. Government knows working class communities will seek to look after their own, to the point of sinking further into poverty themselves
But let's be clearer about the times we are living in and what it means to our sector - big society rapidly becoming a shock doctrine. That might not have been what it set out to be, but the road to hell...
It is now increasingly looking like a deliberately intended and disproportionate trauma, a calculated risk only in that those who are most vulnerable are most at risk.
I had thought the community empowerment era had often failed but there are degrees of failure
Big Society is a form of corporate reenegineering - some of the charity brands are cheerleading this, 'bring it on' they in effect cry, 'we welcome the opportunity'. But there is no amount of wishful thinking and strategic repositioning that is going to deliver the bs.
To do BS you need: time, money, goodwill, a complete absence of govt ideology and a unified VCS sector - all 4 of those things are in severe deficit and you know what they say about deficit deniers...
Marilyn Taylor's book on public policy in the community is something I always turn to, for good sense about policy and there are lots of choice words in the book about power and the way ideology tends to lead policy
Two things briefly on Marilyn Taylor's book - one is the phrase she uses early on about whether an actual policy is a 'window of opportunity or window dressing' rang a bell for me - the perenial concern. Are we being conned again? Secondly her simple threefold categorisation of the options we have as practitioners - to be optimistic, pessimistic or pragmatic
I tend to go with pragmatism but ...
The thing is that these three things are a process; a bit like bereavement -denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance
Well something for sure is dying - but some of the steps in the royal road to principlled pragmatism are in danger of being short circuited judging by some of the discourse in our sector
Paulo Freire talked about three forms of thinking: magical thinking aka we are all in it together; naive thinking aka there are some opportunities to make it work and critical thinking nuff sed
Clearly the VCS does not like winner takes all
Three recent musings are interesting:
1) Julian Dobson's post on respublica
2) Toby Blume's blog
3) And a bit further back in time CEO of Esmee Fairbairn's opinion piece
In different ways we can discern a pattern in each of the three; it will be painful but fast forward the pragmatism and good things can still happen
I'm not so sure; it may well be that we're crossing a rubicon - something is being lost that can't be wished back again - not all change is good
Julian thinks we need to trust society to find solutions to its own problems but society, even if we leave it as vague as that, civil society ain't gonna move on this agenda without proportionate investment from the state, i.e. thru our money as taxpayers money recycled back again to ourselves, those of us who don't avoid our taxes offshore that is.
The wholesale swallowing of small state ideology is worrying.
I speak as no particular fan of the central or local state, but the idea that the increasing numbers of poorer people (poverty is going up) can simultaneously sort things like running their own services and running libraries is dangerous nonsense - and this is the sharp end of the logic that flows from such thinking - be careful what you wish for
The desire to 'rescue the big society' is laudable by generating 'ideas' and 'our society' is a wonderful resource; but it also seems to be partially ducking out of the battle for these same ideas.
What exactly are we talking about?
Is it ideas that can ameliorate the effects of disporortionate cuts or ideas to ensure an elected government doesn't run away with the idea that even though there's plenty of money for bailing out the banks, its old fashioned to expect the same consideration be extended to its most needy citizens. Do you really want to be supporting what is in effect a welfare state for the (super) rich?
Toby sees BS as a risky thing and notes the government's desire to 'disrupt' the 'vested interests' of the sector. But his analysis stops short of what might be considered unacceptable risk of the kind written about by Naomi Kline in her recent book - the shock doctrine whereas having been willing to give the benefit of the doubt for some period I'm more inclined to be less sanguine about the risk and disruption.
Is the community organisers programme really 'the best shot we've had for many years'? The scale of the cuts to the public and VCS would appear to make it impossible to say such things with any confidence - fig leaf and cuts, would be the more common analysis
With regard to 'community development' as a 'close relative to community organising' - Office for Civil Society have stated they are not prepared to have the debate about the two things - CD and CO - even though there are reckoned to be 20,000 CD workers (DCLG CD Challenge), x4 as many as CO's.
Why not bring CD together? Because it is ideologically problematic - CD has a commitment to social justice and collective action; community organising has done great things but it is often highly formulaic which may suit control freaks but not resonate with the messiness of communities as they really exist (jury is still out for me on that one)
Finally Dawn Austwick, as a funder, wants to stay in the game - she advises that we need to 'hold our nerve, play clever and long' (and swallow the cuts uncritically?)
It is very true that there are new solutions out there, fantastic that Dawn meets' passionate and clever people doing interesting things across the UK' but... but ... if the VCS and public sector is going to be as mashed up as we know it will be, that really won't count for much - as a funder the medicine that might need to be proscribed is for campaigning not back door privatisation which is where community ownership could easily end up.
So of course we'll all be pragmatic and working hard, goes without saying. Government knows working class communities will seek to look after their own, to the point of sinking further into poverty themselves
But let's be clearer about the times we are living in and what it means to our sector - big society rapidly becoming a shock doctrine. That might not have been what it set out to be, but the road to hell...
It is now increasingly looking like a deliberately intended and disproportionate trauma, a calculated risk only in that those who are most vulnerable are most at risk.
I had thought the community empowerment era had often failed but there are degrees of failure
Big Society is a form of corporate reenegineering - some of the charity brands are cheerleading this, 'bring it on' they in effect cry, 'we welcome the opportunity'. But there is no amount of wishful thinking and strategic repositioning that is going to deliver the bs.
To do BS you need: time, money, goodwill, a complete absence of govt ideology and a unified VCS sector - all 4 of those things are in severe deficit and you know what they say about deficit deniers...
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
It's time to drag our failing financiers and technocrats into the 21st century
One thing about the big (cuts) society - it has generated much more press about the community sector than ever before - normally charities, community groups, local government, all of that, is a news free zone
Increasingly we have analysis flying around - from Newsnight, the Today Programme, even TV news. Most of it is naff and wrong headed because the media is incredibly lazy in its research and when it is not recycling news from others it sensationalises and trivilises. But for now, the voluntary and community sector is news worthy if only because Dave Cameron has made it so and by extension, because the banking crisis has made it so
Got no money for social programmes? Who you gonna call on? Those mugs who don't have proper jobs in the City or Town Hall - no brainer for aspiring govts in a bit of hole
But of course the distaste for the voluntary and community sector inevitably comes out as witness this article by Chris Blackhurst in last weeks Evening Standard
It is especially instructive in spelling out the following:
A contempt of people who volunteer. A disparagement of all things charitable. A privileging of money, the pursuit thereof, as a superior way of being. A desire to see government thrash the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) into shape and a belief that the VCS must change and become more like the private sector
The following comes to mind by way of rebuttal
There is a reason why the VCS isn't all about money - its because there is already a private sector to do that. Along with the state and the market most people feel we need something else that exists outside of these things - we can't all be bureaucrats or money men and we might come to vlaue community as a good in itself? Likewise following the casino capitalism of recent years and MPs expenses are we really wanting to invoke the brilliance of finance as the way for our charities to go? Inviting crack dealers to trade outside the school gate might have a fractionally better social outcome
So why the presumption that charities be dragged into the 21st century? Well some people are just used to giving orders and some charities are used to following them. Its actually quite rare for many charity heads to have independent thought processes, so embedded in the reflex to follow the money hence the rebranding now underway aka the big society preferred contractor beauty contest
Blackhurst talks about the word 'profit' but seems not to notice the world of social entreprise or the changes that have already taken place in the VCS.
The real point is that most of the VCS is a small group with no money and the kind of support they need is non judgemental encouragement bespoke to their own agenda not something fresh from MBA land. The thing about volunteers and community groups is that they vote with their feet so its time our failing financiers, politicans, technocrats and shoot-from-the-hip columnists got real and stopped talking down to the millions of people who dedicate their lives to helping one another without expoectation of reward, cash or otherwise
Increasingly we have analysis flying around - from Newsnight, the Today Programme, even TV news. Most of it is naff and wrong headed because the media is incredibly lazy in its research and when it is not recycling news from others it sensationalises and trivilises. But for now, the voluntary and community sector is news worthy if only because Dave Cameron has made it so and by extension, because the banking crisis has made it so
Got no money for social programmes? Who you gonna call on? Those mugs who don't have proper jobs in the City or Town Hall - no brainer for aspiring govts in a bit of hole
But of course the distaste for the voluntary and community sector inevitably comes out as witness this article by Chris Blackhurst in last weeks Evening Standard
It is especially instructive in spelling out the following:
A contempt of people who volunteer. A disparagement of all things charitable. A privileging of money, the pursuit thereof, as a superior way of being. A desire to see government thrash the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) into shape and a belief that the VCS must change and become more like the private sector
The following comes to mind by way of rebuttal
There is a reason why the VCS isn't all about money - its because there is already a private sector to do that. Along with the state and the market most people feel we need something else that exists outside of these things - we can't all be bureaucrats or money men and we might come to vlaue community as a good in itself? Likewise following the casino capitalism of recent years and MPs expenses are we really wanting to invoke the brilliance of finance as the way for our charities to go? Inviting crack dealers to trade outside the school gate might have a fractionally better social outcome
So why the presumption that charities be dragged into the 21st century? Well some people are just used to giving orders and some charities are used to following them. Its actually quite rare for many charity heads to have independent thought processes, so embedded in the reflex to follow the money hence the rebranding now underway aka the big society preferred contractor beauty contest
Blackhurst talks about the word 'profit' but seems not to notice the world of social entreprise or the changes that have already taken place in the VCS.
The real point is that most of the VCS is a small group with no money and the kind of support they need is non judgemental encouragement bespoke to their own agenda not something fresh from MBA land. The thing about volunteers and community groups is that they vote with their feet so its time our failing financiers, politicans, technocrats and shoot-from-the-hip columnists got real and stopped talking down to the millions of people who dedicate their lives to helping one another without expoectation of reward, cash or otherwise
Thursday, 3 February 2011
Big Society, the RSA, and those pesky dysfunctional small community groups who just won't work together
At a recent Green Alliance event on the Big Society at which both minister for Civil Society, Nick Hurd, and RSA CEO Matthew Taylor spoke at, we had a rare moment of candour, albeit a deeply disturbing and partial tone was struck, as reported here
There are at least two immediate concerns, that make the work of those who want to see the community sector thrive, just that bit harder
Firstly - what exactly gives Matthew Taylor the right to lable small groups 'dysfunctional'? And what are the implications of shooting from the hip in this way
Secondly - whilst Nick Hurd is right that there are 'hundreds and thosands of civil society organisations that don't rely on statutory income at all'. It does not follow that they do not need funding or the support that funding gives - quite the reverse
This was in fact a central point of CSC's 'Unleashing the Potential' call to arms before the general election, which we put to Nick Hurd, the Big Society Network and many others, in order to underline the added value and the need to support that part of the sector - hence our 5 asks.
http://www.communitysectorcoalition.org.uk/policy
Taken together it is an impressive double whammy - on the one hand groups are run by tyrants who fall out with each other (people in glass houses etc) and on the other hand, a lot of these small groups do it for nothing, so bring on the cuts, they won't notice...
Where to begin with such destructive and willful misunderstandings of our sector?
On the first salvo, aimed at casting the sector in the role of hopeless self saboteurs, of course dyfunctionality does break out. The crooked timber of humanity never ran smooth. But hardly more so than the dynamics elsewhere in society; indeed I would argue much less. The egalitarian and non hierarchical principles of real community work and grassroots endeavour, where people don't hide behind status and are not allowed to give themselves airs and graces, is a welcome relief from some of the public and private sector cultures.
In passing, we might want to note what comes to mind when thinking about dysfunctional behaviours - might it extend to irresponsible banking practice, MPs expenses, tax avoidance on a massive scale and how this might offset a significant part of the public sector cuts as per recent Newsnight reports (I won't do the link because Paxman turned the air blue, what is it with the BBC these days...)
The issue of dynfunctionality must be seen in a 360 degree way. In particular the work of Erving Goffman is highly pertinent:
Erv puts his finger on an inconvenient truth - large organsations have a strong tendency to adopt overtly oppressive operational behaviours that damage people. Note this is large organisations, and not small community groups.
There is a vested interest in a large organisation bemoaning the shortcomings and unfortunate psyche of the great unwashed. The trouble is, if we start using cod psychology terms like 'dysfunctionality' we end up arriving at terms like 'displacement' or 'projection', and the whole thing gets a bit silly. We should not be making moral and or ill informed psychological judgements in the first place.
If it becomes necessary to challenge oppressive behaviour within communities, and this is something community and youth workers have long experience doing, disparaging homilies tends not to cut it. You'd have to demonstrate real commitment to listening and working the problem through
Finally, it is so easy to knock the more informal parts of the sector and many people have made a good living out of doing so. Those pesky small groups, they are not skilled, they need their capacity built (for a fee), their governance, polices and procedures are inadequate etc etc. Ignoring the fact that small groups work best when fleet of foot and rightly choose not to mimic the bureaucratic behaviours of larger VCS and other bodies (something Nick Hurd identifies but then does not go on to develop re the need for some kind of support and investment).
Segway to Nick Hurd, who does a good line in playing off competing wings of the sector, not without some validity, but with a not-so-hidden agenda of amelorirating the brutalism of cuts
The problem with Nick's comment at Green Alliance is that it seems to suggest that just because these smaller community groups are unfunded, they wil be unaffected by what is going on, notably by the slash and burn of existing VCS infrastructure. In fact the plight of these small unfunded groups will now be harder, because, whilst it might be true that sometimes funded VCS groups didn't reach into the community, it is also true that there are many examples of strong support that now won't be there, hence unfunded civil society action, as supported by funded VCS groups just got that bit harder, at a time when Big Society was hoping to see more people volunteering
If we look at what is actually likely to happen: there may well be less people volunteering and less small groups or civil society organisations. This is because the sector is an ecosystem (aka Nat Wei) which is on the receiving end of some pretty toxic treatment - note the council cuts to the VCS, all too often wildly disproportionate and short term. If these small batallions of community groups can't take advantage of the 'new markets' government is keen to open up - assets, libraries, personalisation of services etc - well people like SERCO and lean mean highly 'functional' brands in the charity world will make an intervention.
At the same time something called civil society will get smaller and poorer as a result. This doesn't have to happen but it is increasingly likely - not least when small groups are pathologised or seemingly not prioritised any level of funding support (to repeat for the benefit of those with selective politically nuanced hearing): the fact that many groups don't rely on statutory income does not mean they would not benefit from it
Rather than blame small community groups, and sharpen the next round of excuses for why the policy didn't work this time, for the good of all in society, we should put aside the mentality that says it didn't work because 'they' were 'dyfunctional' and instead accentuate the positives of what small groups do, get behind it, support it and resource it. What part of 'we're all in it together' and localism / decentralisation are we not yet grasping?
There are at least two immediate concerns, that make the work of those who want to see the community sector thrive, just that bit harder
Firstly - what exactly gives Matthew Taylor the right to lable small groups 'dysfunctional'? And what are the implications of shooting from the hip in this way
Secondly - whilst Nick Hurd is right that there are 'hundreds and thosands of civil society organisations that don't rely on statutory income at all'. It does not follow that they do not need funding or the support that funding gives - quite the reverse
This was in fact a central point of CSC's 'Unleashing the Potential' call to arms before the general election, which we put to Nick Hurd, the Big Society Network and many others, in order to underline the added value and the need to support that part of the sector - hence our 5 asks.
http://www.communitysectorcoalition.org.uk/policy
Taken together it is an impressive double whammy - on the one hand groups are run by tyrants who fall out with each other (people in glass houses etc) and on the other hand, a lot of these small groups do it for nothing, so bring on the cuts, they won't notice...
Where to begin with such destructive and willful misunderstandings of our sector?
On the first salvo, aimed at casting the sector in the role of hopeless self saboteurs, of course dyfunctionality does break out. The crooked timber of humanity never ran smooth. But hardly more so than the dynamics elsewhere in society; indeed I would argue much less. The egalitarian and non hierarchical principles of real community work and grassroots endeavour, where people don't hide behind status and are not allowed to give themselves airs and graces, is a welcome relief from some of the public and private sector cultures.
In passing, we might want to note what comes to mind when thinking about dysfunctional behaviours - might it extend to irresponsible banking practice, MPs expenses, tax avoidance on a massive scale and how this might offset a significant part of the public sector cuts as per recent Newsnight reports (I won't do the link because Paxman turned the air blue, what is it with the BBC these days...)
The issue of dynfunctionality must be seen in a 360 degree way. In particular the work of Erving Goffman is highly pertinent:
Erv puts his finger on an inconvenient truth - large organsations have a strong tendency to adopt overtly oppressive operational behaviours that damage people. Note this is large organisations, and not small community groups.
There is a vested interest in a large organisation bemoaning the shortcomings and unfortunate psyche of the great unwashed. The trouble is, if we start using cod psychology terms like 'dysfunctionality' we end up arriving at terms like 'displacement' or 'projection', and the whole thing gets a bit silly. We should not be making moral and or ill informed psychological judgements in the first place.
If it becomes necessary to challenge oppressive behaviour within communities, and this is something community and youth workers have long experience doing, disparaging homilies tends not to cut it. You'd have to demonstrate real commitment to listening and working the problem through
Finally, it is so easy to knock the more informal parts of the sector and many people have made a good living out of doing so. Those pesky small groups, they are not skilled, they need their capacity built (for a fee), their governance, polices and procedures are inadequate etc etc. Ignoring the fact that small groups work best when fleet of foot and rightly choose not to mimic the bureaucratic behaviours of larger VCS and other bodies (something Nick Hurd identifies but then does not go on to develop re the need for some kind of support and investment).
Segway to Nick Hurd, who does a good line in playing off competing wings of the sector, not without some validity, but with a not-so-hidden agenda of amelorirating the brutalism of cuts
The problem with Nick's comment at Green Alliance is that it seems to suggest that just because these smaller community groups are unfunded, they wil be unaffected by what is going on, notably by the slash and burn of existing VCS infrastructure. In fact the plight of these small unfunded groups will now be harder, because, whilst it might be true that sometimes funded VCS groups didn't reach into the community, it is also true that there are many examples of strong support that now won't be there, hence unfunded civil society action, as supported by funded VCS groups just got that bit harder, at a time when Big Society was hoping to see more people volunteering
If we look at what is actually likely to happen: there may well be less people volunteering and less small groups or civil society organisations. This is because the sector is an ecosystem (aka Nat Wei) which is on the receiving end of some pretty toxic treatment - note the council cuts to the VCS, all too often wildly disproportionate and short term. If these small batallions of community groups can't take advantage of the 'new markets' government is keen to open up - assets, libraries, personalisation of services etc - well people like SERCO and lean mean highly 'functional' brands in the charity world will make an intervention.
At the same time something called civil society will get smaller and poorer as a result. This doesn't have to happen but it is increasingly likely - not least when small groups are pathologised or seemingly not prioritised any level of funding support (to repeat for the benefit of those with selective politically nuanced hearing): the fact that many groups don't rely on statutory income does not mean they would not benefit from it
Rather than blame small community groups, and sharpen the next round of excuses for why the policy didn't work this time, for the good of all in society, we should put aside the mentality that says it didn't work because 'they' were 'dyfunctional' and instead accentuate the positives of what small groups do, get behind it, support it and resource it. What part of 'we're all in it together' and localism / decentralisation are we not yet grasping?
Friday, 21 January 2011
For once, let's create our own civil culture (and not mimic the US charitable giving)
A beguiling headline from that anodyne electonic news purveyor that is 'Civil Society' caught my eye t'other day: It read 'calls for UK to mimic US charitable culture'
http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/fundraising/news/content/8094/calls_for_uk_to_mimic_us
My gut response was Biblical, along the lines of go forth and multiply, and take your specious market ideology with you
My mature reflection: oh for goodness sake, if someone wanted to set the sector back not just decades but into the Victorian era they could not do better - why do we allow such banal and self defeating immiseration dressed up as a 'new' and 'big' idea?
With that in mind I posted the following below the article:
The idea that the UK should mimic US charitable culture is already well embedded. We borrow so much of their terminology that we are very much the 51st state
The deeper issue is not so much that we should 'carry on mimicing' but that we should question whether this is a 'good thing'.
I'm one of those who think it isn't.
America is one of the most unequal and divided (over)developed countries on the planet - see the spirit level for further issues that arise from strcutral long term income inequality and how it corrodes society
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level?gclid=CNjX74SHyaYCFYpO4Qod10b5HQ
Also (if you have time) have a look at Polly Toynbee's book on 'unjust rewards'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/sep/14/1
Where in the final chapetrs she describes the abject way in which charities have to special plead to super rich philnathropists, that they are the deserving poor - it is extremely unwholsome, this bragging about giving money made off the back of primarily irresponsible financial trading and tax avoidance
Etherington and Hughes Hallet probably wouldn't consider this an issue as it may suit their ideological predilection for big business but for the rest of society this is not the panacea for cuts that government would have us believe. It has the potential for limited public good, but by limited I mean drop in the ocean in comaparision with the cuts in the public sector and VCS AND it also has the tendency to be incredibly insensitive and patronising
In his book 'just another emperor' micheal edwards explodes some of these myths about philanthrocapitalism and calls for a critical and honest debate.
http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/images/fbfiles/files/Just_Another_Emperor.pdf
This is what we need. Not platitudes from the great and the good in the VCS, Govt and Private Sectors whilst the community sector gets quietly wiped out due to disproportionate cuts
For the kind of community sector and new funding settlement CSC would like to see, have a look at:
http://www.communitysectorcoalition.org.uk/policy
Rock on
http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/fundraising/news/content/8094/calls_for_uk_to_mimic_us
My gut response was Biblical, along the lines of go forth and multiply, and take your specious market ideology with you
My mature reflection: oh for goodness sake, if someone wanted to set the sector back not just decades but into the Victorian era they could not do better - why do we allow such banal and self defeating immiseration dressed up as a 'new' and 'big' idea?
With that in mind I posted the following below the article:
The idea that the UK should mimic US charitable culture is already well embedded. We borrow so much of their terminology that we are very much the 51st state
The deeper issue is not so much that we should 'carry on mimicing' but that we should question whether this is a 'good thing'.
I'm one of those who think it isn't.
America is one of the most unequal and divided (over)developed countries on the planet - see the spirit level for further issues that arise from strcutral long term income inequality and how it corrodes society
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level?gclid=CNjX74SHyaYCFYpO4Qod10b5HQ
Also (if you have time) have a look at Polly Toynbee's book on 'unjust rewards'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/sep/14/1
Where in the final chapetrs she describes the abject way in which charities have to special plead to super rich philnathropists, that they are the deserving poor - it is extremely unwholsome, this bragging about giving money made off the back of primarily irresponsible financial trading and tax avoidance
Etherington and Hughes Hallet probably wouldn't consider this an issue as it may suit their ideological predilection for big business but for the rest of society this is not the panacea for cuts that government would have us believe. It has the potential for limited public good, but by limited I mean drop in the ocean in comaparision with the cuts in the public sector and VCS AND it also has the tendency to be incredibly insensitive and patronising
In his book 'just another emperor' micheal edwards explodes some of these myths about philanthrocapitalism and calls for a critical and honest debate.
http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/images/fbfiles/files/Just_Another_Emperor.pdf
This is what we need. Not platitudes from the great and the good in the VCS, Govt and Private Sectors whilst the community sector gets quietly wiped out due to disproportionate cuts
For the kind of community sector and new funding settlement CSC would like to see, have a look at:
http://www.communitysectorcoalition.org.uk/policy
Rock on
Friday, 14 January 2011
Broken localism: the politics of empty slogans
We know that devolving power from central to local government, and to individuals and communities below them, or localism as it is sometimes known, can offset the impersonal forces of globalisation which corrodes community ties and leaves people isolated and vulnerable. There should be no doubt that we need to protect and build up the local, to enhance social resilience in these times of austerity. We need to promote homespun prosperity. We do need to be ‘all in it together’ as the government mantra would have it. So although it commanded little press interest the new Localism Bill, presented to Parliament on 13 December 2010, matters a great deal. The Bill was heralded by government as a devolution of powers to councils and neighbourhoods. What we got was piecemeal legislation, a few minor changes here and there, no spectacular surprises, and certainly nothing to warrant the rhetorical claim of turning the relationship of citizen and state on its head. Rather than big bang localism the Bill is surprisingly timid, especially when set next to the vigour with which the wider cuts agenda has been pursued.
Tip O’Neill former speaker of the House in the US Congress famously once said, ‘all politics is local’. But what happens when the local is all politics? Specifically what happens when it is the politics of central government that uses localism to consolidate its own position? In this country, unlike most others across Europe, Scandinavia and America, all local politics are subservient to the politics of central government. The slogans go one way, the monopoly of power in another.
The Bill presents a battery of measures. There is a predictable clearing out: the Standards Board regime, Home Improvement Packs, Regional Spatial Strategies, the Infrastructure Planning Commission and the Tenant Services Authority are all going. The replacement options for these shibboleths are minimal rather than visionary. More control appears to be given to councils via a new ‘general power of competence’ which enables them to carry out any lawful activity on behalf of the community. However we would do well to remember that central government, via Parliament and the court system, gets to decide what ‘lawful activity’ means. Elsewhere in the Bill a handful of areas will be able to hold referendums for directly elected mayors; it is as if government couldn’t quite make up its mind whether it wants to push ahead with older reforms or invent its own ones. When it comes to local residents the Bill wants to direct their energies towards service delivery rather than give them an entirely free rein. Local people are to be given the power to instigate local referendums in the hope that they might be persuaded to save local facilities threatened with closure and run them themselves – a poisoned chalice if ever there was one. Social housing tenants have a similar dilemma: their more flexible tenure gives them a greater ability to move to different areas, yet local authorities can now limit who can apply for social housing within their areas.
The Olympics get a mention, as does the defunct London Development Agency, business rate relief and a community infrastructure levy. Not that these last two items do anything to address the uneven contest between councils and communities on the one hand and unscrupulous developers on the other. Faced with a Bill like this we are beset with minutiae, a cacophony of planning technicalities, and left to puzzle how the mechanics of how a referendum might actually work. Policy officers up and down the land, in the few remaining jobs in local government and the voluntary sector, will be looking for crumbs of comfort. Somewhere there is a sentence or two amidst the verbiage that can be relied on to make the case for whatever local agenda might profit from having government license. That is the first option, to make lemonade out of lemons, and it is well under way. Or, having absorbed the detail, we might consider the Bill and ask how much it really changes anything? Beyond the fizz and froth, this non-event of a Bill poses further questions: what would real devolution look like? Why is the localism agenda so consistently overhyped? What would it take to make localism happen?
Real devolution of power would mean local government becoming formally independent from central government, both legally and financially. In this Bill councils are still subordinate to the centre. In 1986 the Widdicombe Commission bluntly asserted that, ‘local government has no right to exist’ because, ‘parliament is sovereign’. This remains the case. Perhaps more importantly, money flows from the centre. Currently around three quarters of all local authority money comes from central government. Until local government is freed up to raise the majority of its money locally, as happens in other comparable countries, it has no practical independence and will remain a creature of central government patronage.
Real devolution of power for communities would go beyond the opportunity to call for a referendum, deliver services or take over the running of a building. These achievements are only possible, if at all, after huge amounts of support by larger professional organisations. If localism were to happen from the grassroots upwards we would see a rich diversity of informal community action, which inevitably takes years and costs money. The more likely scenario is that local community action will continue to decline, as always happens at times of economic hardship because the rational choice is to use one’s time to seek paid work not to volunteer. The real danger is that this decline in social action will snowball because the kind of opportunities for community empowerment that government envisages are something local community groups could never realistically be expected to do on the scale the Bill has set out. The scale of cuts will mean plenty of empty public buildings and that service contracts can now be picked up by private sector bodies. Also a new brand of larger charity that is voluntary in name only, and that has little or no connection with the local community it purports to serve, will clean up. Having hollowed out the public sector, civil society itself becomes deracinated.
For years governments have overhyped localism, claiming to give back power to the people. In the forward to the 2008 Empowerment White Paper Hazel Blears spoke of The English Civil War, the Rochdale cooperative movement, Peterloo, the Chartists, the Suffragettes and those who fought fascism as part of, ‘the great struggles for democracy’. They certainly deserve to be remembered as such but implying that New Labour’s brand of localism stands in such a tradition is errant nonsense. Continuing this more recent custom of extreme overstatement, the minister for decentralisation, Greg Clarke, writing on this bill in the Guardian (13.12.10) insists, ‘there’s a new boss. You’.
It is attractive to be our own boss but state-sanctioned narcissism does not begin to tell the truth about how we are to live together. For citizens to rise up and take power, notwithstanding such partial measures as the ‘right to challenge’, the ability to bid for assets and deliver local services, they must have councils that are not cowed by central government. To balance a strong local state, citizens will also need a vibrant, well resourced civil society led by the collective action of voluntary and especially community groups. This kind of society doesn’t exist. The time, effort and resources it takes to support community action have been exhorted but not understood. The consequences of overhyping localism are that it becomes a discredited currency and more generally we lose trust in politics. In 2007, writing principally on New Labour (The Triumph of the Political Class), Peter Oborne described an era of post-democracy where a new brand of politician, increasingly detached from civil society, pumps out simplistic messages based on market research or borrowed from the advertising industry. He called it manipulative populism and drew a parallel with totalitarian countries. In pre-election speeches David Cameron appeared to understand the risks of such a debased political culture and made considerable political capital out of it, which makes the current Bill all the more disappointing.
Any steps taken towards a stronger civil society and deeper democratic practice would be a towering political achievement, whoever pulled it off. The only way it could be achieved is by reversing conventional political wisdom. Lord Wei, the government’s Big Society adviser has spoken of society as a three legged stool, implying the need for proportionate attention to the needs of both the public and private sectors along with the newly discovered civil society, formerly known by New Labour as the ‘third sector’. And yet the reason why we are seeing unprecedented cuts is because of private sector failings over above those of the state. Only a state so deeply obeisant to private sector values, a market state, could present it as radical and empowering. The government’s premise that bureaucratic government is both ineffective and undemocratic is correct as far as it goes, but when taken to extremes, and the scale of the cuts are extreme, a bit of bureaucracy can quickly appear preferable to little or no government at all.
For localism to work there would need to be real vision and courage to not only spread power more widely but for central government to have proportionately less of it. Our local government would need at least double the freedoms and powers it currently has to catch up with localism in comparable countries elsewhere in the world. And for civil society to play any kind of significant role, made up as it is of mainly of small community groups, there would need to be unprecedented levels of appropriate support, offered without strings attached. There is a reason why people volunteer and it has nothing to do with seeking to undercut the costs of state provision of local services. Services may benefit, savings may be made as a result of having a stronger civil society but this is a by product not a cheque that government can expect to cash any time soon.
Meanwhile power has stayed where it always was, at the centre of government, and now government has decided it can no longer afford former levels of support. This is presented as giving away power so people can do for themselves what government used to do, before the bank bailout. Picking up the bill for the banking crisis changes everything. Claiming that austerity is an opportunity for redistributing power to communities is as disingenuous as it is politically expedient. We are encouraged by ministers to view this as a radical shift of power away from central government – it isn’t. Without money and power localism is an empty slogan.
Tip O’Neill former speaker of the House in the US Congress famously once said, ‘all politics is local’. But what happens when the local is all politics? Specifically what happens when it is the politics of central government that uses localism to consolidate its own position? In this country, unlike most others across Europe, Scandinavia and America, all local politics are subservient to the politics of central government. The slogans go one way, the monopoly of power in another.
The Bill presents a battery of measures. There is a predictable clearing out: the Standards Board regime, Home Improvement Packs, Regional Spatial Strategies, the Infrastructure Planning Commission and the Tenant Services Authority are all going. The replacement options for these shibboleths are minimal rather than visionary. More control appears to be given to councils via a new ‘general power of competence’ which enables them to carry out any lawful activity on behalf of the community. However we would do well to remember that central government, via Parliament and the court system, gets to decide what ‘lawful activity’ means. Elsewhere in the Bill a handful of areas will be able to hold referendums for directly elected mayors; it is as if government couldn’t quite make up its mind whether it wants to push ahead with older reforms or invent its own ones. When it comes to local residents the Bill wants to direct their energies towards service delivery rather than give them an entirely free rein. Local people are to be given the power to instigate local referendums in the hope that they might be persuaded to save local facilities threatened with closure and run them themselves – a poisoned chalice if ever there was one. Social housing tenants have a similar dilemma: their more flexible tenure gives them a greater ability to move to different areas, yet local authorities can now limit who can apply for social housing within their areas.
The Olympics get a mention, as does the defunct London Development Agency, business rate relief and a community infrastructure levy. Not that these last two items do anything to address the uneven contest between councils and communities on the one hand and unscrupulous developers on the other. Faced with a Bill like this we are beset with minutiae, a cacophony of planning technicalities, and left to puzzle how the mechanics of how a referendum might actually work. Policy officers up and down the land, in the few remaining jobs in local government and the voluntary sector, will be looking for crumbs of comfort. Somewhere there is a sentence or two amidst the verbiage that can be relied on to make the case for whatever local agenda might profit from having government license. That is the first option, to make lemonade out of lemons, and it is well under way. Or, having absorbed the detail, we might consider the Bill and ask how much it really changes anything? Beyond the fizz and froth, this non-event of a Bill poses further questions: what would real devolution look like? Why is the localism agenda so consistently overhyped? What would it take to make localism happen?
Real devolution of power would mean local government becoming formally independent from central government, both legally and financially. In this Bill councils are still subordinate to the centre. In 1986 the Widdicombe Commission bluntly asserted that, ‘local government has no right to exist’ because, ‘parliament is sovereign’. This remains the case. Perhaps more importantly, money flows from the centre. Currently around three quarters of all local authority money comes from central government. Until local government is freed up to raise the majority of its money locally, as happens in other comparable countries, it has no practical independence and will remain a creature of central government patronage.
Real devolution of power for communities would go beyond the opportunity to call for a referendum, deliver services or take over the running of a building. These achievements are only possible, if at all, after huge amounts of support by larger professional organisations. If localism were to happen from the grassroots upwards we would see a rich diversity of informal community action, which inevitably takes years and costs money. The more likely scenario is that local community action will continue to decline, as always happens at times of economic hardship because the rational choice is to use one’s time to seek paid work not to volunteer. The real danger is that this decline in social action will snowball because the kind of opportunities for community empowerment that government envisages are something local community groups could never realistically be expected to do on the scale the Bill has set out. The scale of cuts will mean plenty of empty public buildings and that service contracts can now be picked up by private sector bodies. Also a new brand of larger charity that is voluntary in name only, and that has little or no connection with the local community it purports to serve, will clean up. Having hollowed out the public sector, civil society itself becomes deracinated.
For years governments have overhyped localism, claiming to give back power to the people. In the forward to the 2008 Empowerment White Paper Hazel Blears spoke of The English Civil War, the Rochdale cooperative movement, Peterloo, the Chartists, the Suffragettes and those who fought fascism as part of, ‘the great struggles for democracy’. They certainly deserve to be remembered as such but implying that New Labour’s brand of localism stands in such a tradition is errant nonsense. Continuing this more recent custom of extreme overstatement, the minister for decentralisation, Greg Clarke, writing on this bill in the Guardian (13.12.10) insists, ‘there’s a new boss. You’.
It is attractive to be our own boss but state-sanctioned narcissism does not begin to tell the truth about how we are to live together. For citizens to rise up and take power, notwithstanding such partial measures as the ‘right to challenge’, the ability to bid for assets and deliver local services, they must have councils that are not cowed by central government. To balance a strong local state, citizens will also need a vibrant, well resourced civil society led by the collective action of voluntary and especially community groups. This kind of society doesn’t exist. The time, effort and resources it takes to support community action have been exhorted but not understood. The consequences of overhyping localism are that it becomes a discredited currency and more generally we lose trust in politics. In 2007, writing principally on New Labour (The Triumph of the Political Class), Peter Oborne described an era of post-democracy where a new brand of politician, increasingly detached from civil society, pumps out simplistic messages based on market research or borrowed from the advertising industry. He called it manipulative populism and drew a parallel with totalitarian countries. In pre-election speeches David Cameron appeared to understand the risks of such a debased political culture and made considerable political capital out of it, which makes the current Bill all the more disappointing.
Any steps taken towards a stronger civil society and deeper democratic practice would be a towering political achievement, whoever pulled it off. The only way it could be achieved is by reversing conventional political wisdom. Lord Wei, the government’s Big Society adviser has spoken of society as a three legged stool, implying the need for proportionate attention to the needs of both the public and private sectors along with the newly discovered civil society, formerly known by New Labour as the ‘third sector’. And yet the reason why we are seeing unprecedented cuts is because of private sector failings over above those of the state. Only a state so deeply obeisant to private sector values, a market state, could present it as radical and empowering. The government’s premise that bureaucratic government is both ineffective and undemocratic is correct as far as it goes, but when taken to extremes, and the scale of the cuts are extreme, a bit of bureaucracy can quickly appear preferable to little or no government at all.
For localism to work there would need to be real vision and courage to not only spread power more widely but for central government to have proportionately less of it. Our local government would need at least double the freedoms and powers it currently has to catch up with localism in comparable countries elsewhere in the world. And for civil society to play any kind of significant role, made up as it is of mainly of small community groups, there would need to be unprecedented levels of appropriate support, offered without strings attached. There is a reason why people volunteer and it has nothing to do with seeking to undercut the costs of state provision of local services. Services may benefit, savings may be made as a result of having a stronger civil society but this is a by product not a cheque that government can expect to cash any time soon.
Meanwhile power has stayed where it always was, at the centre of government, and now government has decided it can no longer afford former levels of support. This is presented as giving away power so people can do for themselves what government used to do, before the bank bailout. Picking up the bill for the banking crisis changes everything. Claiming that austerity is an opportunity for redistributing power to communities is as disingenuous as it is politically expedient. We are encouraged by ministers to view this as a radical shift of power away from central government – it isn’t. Without money and power localism is an empty slogan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)