I really think, that with all the goodwill I can possibly muster for Lord Wei’s ‘Big Society’, politically it has been badly received. More crucially, academically, it is poorly conceived. The Big Society is the flagship policy idea of the 2010 Conservative Party general election manifesto and forms part of the legislative programme of the Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement. According to the Civil Society website,
“The Big Society is struggling to capture the imagination of the public as a poll shows that more than half of voters claim not to have heard of the idea. But while many have not heard of the Conservative policy to encourage personal responsibility and community spirit, a similar proportion of voters (54 per cent) believe it is a good idea once it is explained to them, according to the Ipsos Mori poll commissioned by the RSA and released today. “
An important aim is to create a climate that empowers local people and communities, building a big society that will ‘take power away from politicians and give it to people’. It was launched in the 2010 Conservative manifesto and described by The Times as “an impressive attempt to reframe the role of government and unleash entrepreneurial spirit”.
Lord Nat Wei, one of the founders of the Big Society Network, was appointed by David Cameron to advise the government on the Big Society programme.
The stated priorities are:
1. Give communities more powers
The arguments that this has been the focus of the work of charities, communities and the Labour Party have been exhaustively discussed elsewhere. A greater concern is that no government appears to value certain sectors of society, e.g. lollypop ladies, whilst the inequality gap has got substantially wider under Labour, while governments always safeguard bankers. Take, for example, the ode to wealth creators David Cameron is going to produce in his speech this afternoon.
2. Encourage people to take an active role in their communities
At the end of the day, you can’t force people to take an active role in their communities. In other words, a person is not voluntarily likely to do bus driving for free, when he or she feels that someone else is doing it, and being paid for it. Many unemployed people will be too terrified about their long-term benefits, and what may or may not threat them, whilst actively looking for salaried employment, to engage with their local community.
3. Transfer power from central to local government
Thatcher effectively tried to bribe local voters to vote for the Conservative Party by generating a lower poll tax in the 1980s. People know full well how shallow and unintelligent this was, and there has been much healthy interest in the Labour/Co-operative movement which has been a successful model in transferring power from central to local government.
4. Support co-operatives, mutuals, charities and social enterprises
From what I can understand, Lord Wei envisages the business part of the ‘Big Society’ as a social franchising model. The main problem from that, unless they are managed correctly, such business entities can suffer from lack of investment, recruitment, shared resources, and, ultimately, profitability. It is indeed an answerable case why functions of the private sector or public sector should be offloaded onto charities aka the third sector.
It’s all very well the? Big Society Network’s? chief? executive? Paul? Twivy? providing that,
“its? three? goals? are? to? encourage? people? to? take? action? in? their? local? area,? to? encourage? people? to? take? part? in? groups? and? to? help? community? groups? and? social? entrepreneurs? to? access? the? local? powers? that? the? government’s? Big ?Society ?legislative? programme ?will? create. ?”
however I would strongly argue that we have yet to have the academic business debate about it. The word ‘social entrepreneur’ undoubtedly has a ‘feel-good’ factor, but the merits of social franchising requiring some detailed security, if we are to invest millions into promoting it; into investing into it, through the Big Society Bank for example.
Don’t get me wrong – it could be a wonderful success?
5. Publish government data.
This is a useful function, provided that one essential assumption is met. That is, “The Big Society” is separate from government. Otherwise, this point has absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
Early days – it could be an incredible success or unmitigated disaster. A real marmite policy, if ever there were one.
