The Big Issue

The phrase Big Society has been ubiquitous recently. Frankly I am getting tired of hearing it, particularly as no-one really knows what it means. Last week I watched Ten O'Clock Live, which was pretty entertaining and is still available on 4od here. The best bit was a loud argument between Johann Hari, Shaun Bailey, and Phillip Blond. Ostensibly this was meant to be about whether the Big Society is a good idea, but was really a debate about what it is. Each panellist had a different view. Amusingly, they apparently continued to argue about this off-air.

Hari described Big Society as a mere phrase, used as a pretext to justify huge cuts in public services.

Bailey saw Big Society as agreement that the government would stop interfering with charities and let them solve social problems in their own way.

Blond enthused that Big Society would lead to co-operatives springing up everywhere, and public services being run by independently by, presumably, enthusiasts.

Evidently, each man's view was entirely shaped by his background and particular hobbyhorses. Bailey is a former Conservative candidate for Hammersmith and now runs a charity there. Hari is a left-wing journalist, columnist for the Independent, and a staunch critic of the cuts. Blond is director of a right-wing libertarian think-tank that has been banging on about mutualisation, collective ownership, and co-operatives for ages.

I can see how all three perspectives have some merit, but overall the debate just gave me the impression that the Big Society is a void into which each individual projects their opinions. This is curious, given the fuzzily-articulated philosophy of collectivity and togetherness that seems to underpin government rhetoric. Of course, for the intended definition of Big Society, it's worth checking with the man who foisted it upon us, Cameron himself. In a recent Guardian article, he laid it out:

...it combines three clear methods to bring people together to improve their lives and the lives of others: devolving power to the lowest level so neighbourhoods take control of their destiny; opening up our public services, putting trust in professionals and power in the hands of the people they serve; and encouraging volunteering and social action so people contribute more to their community.

The article is actually worth reading, as it is a lot clearer than most of the waffle that the government has put out on the subject. Some of it even makes sense, but it is a totally partial approach. Cameron talks of the cuts to public services as an opportunity, but ignores the element of risk. The current government, many of them millionaires, don't see the public sector as a necessary safety net but as an impediment to progress. This post sets out this problem with the Big Society, along with a number of others.

More important than what the Big Society is, though, is what it'll mean. I agree with the David Cameron that the Big Society could transform Britain. It could turn it into a more compassionate, actively involved, resilient place - eventually and in some areas. In others, it could exacebate inequality and tensions between social groups, cause a rapid deterioration in infrastructure and the public realm, and trap people in blighted communities. Basically, diffusing public services into a confusing mass would cause rapid divergence.

That is, if you take David Cameron at face value. Let us look in more detail at his three policy threads, 'devolving power to the lowest level so neighbourhoods take control of their destiny; opening up our public services, putting trust in professionals and power in the hands of the people they serve; and encouraging volunteering and social action'.

Devolving power: the Localism Bill defies its name by containing over a hundred new powers for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, including the ability to decide what constitutes an 'excessive' council tax increase. Urban areas without an established 'neighbourhood forum' won't be able to make use of the planning powers in the Bill, and require local councils to mediate between competing bids to take on this status. They also rely on planning authorities to provide advice and resources, which will not be available. Taking control of your destiny through planning is only meaningful if development of some sort happens, which requires investment. Not much sign of public investment any longer, so this require the private sector. Small, largely inexperienced and unresourced groups vs huge developers; the former may notionally have the statutory planning powers, but I think the public sector is needed as a mediator here, or at least a backup.

Opening up public services: the Localism Bill doesn't give community groups any precedence over private companies in bidding to run public services. Realistically, who is going to bid lower? Who is going to demonstrate economies of scale and a track record of delivery? It'll be the big companies. As for collective ownership, I'm not seeing a lot of enthusiasm for that at the coalface of local government cuts. Where's the support for mutualisation? Where are the precedents? Blond mentions one, a port. Has this been tried for housing services, planning departments, highways? All are being cut back at the moment. How do you take collective ownership of something like that? Anyway, when faced with cuts this sudden, local councils just don't have the time to properly consider outsourcing or 'opening up' services. Budget cuts of 20% will arrive before the Localism bill becomes law.

Putting trust in professionals: TRUST? Don't make me laugh! Have you read any press release from CLG lately? Have some samples:

Mr Pickles has raised strong concerns over the frequency of council papers, politically contentious advertising and use of lobbyists, pledging to rewrite the rule book. He believes councils should redirect resources into protecting front line services.

Whitehall has cut back the red tape which holds local community groups back and councils should now do their bit to support this national day of celebration

The taxpayer has a right to look under the bonnet of their Town Hall and see what decisions are being made on their behalf and where their money is being spent [...] Today I'm publishing a new code that will help decipher the Town Hall maze of middle management, bringing more public information to light. This will also give the few remaining refuseniks a clear game plan to follow.

And those are just from the past week! Also within the week, CLG responded incredibly defensively to a Local Government Chronicle article interrogating the department's published spending information. Quote:

The Local Government Chronicle has made claims that "Eric Pickles has spent millions on consultants since he took the reins in the Department for Communities and Local Government reflecting the cost of the reorganisation under way at Eland House."

This assertion is based on a factually inaccurate analysis of the spending over £500 that the Department now publishes as part of its commitment to transparency.

A spokesperson for the Department for Communities and Local Government said:

"It is completely untrue to suggest that millions have been spent on consultants since the change in administration. Several of the figures quoted are incorrect, refer to spending under the previous administration or have been incorrectly entered as consultancy. [So in most cases, it was their mistake not LGC's interpretation]

So much for trust. No wonder the relationship between local and national government is at an all-time nadir. Public servants are being painted as faceless, wasteful bureaucrats in order to justify making hundreds of thousands of them redundant.

Returning to Cameron's 'power in the hands of people', in general this is not a new power or legal change as such, but the expectation that sudden absence of public services will unleash innovation and creativity in dealing with, say, potholes. There are shades of Shumpeter's 'gales of creative destruction' here, the concept of something new and better emerging from chaos. A very old idea, almost always promulgated by those who would remain entirely unaffected by such chaos.

Last of the Big Society characteristics is the encouragement of volunteering and social action. This is laudable, but should also be bounded by realism. Twenty-four per cent of people volunteered formally at least once a month in April-September 2010, which is a fall from 29% in 2007/8 but still not bad. Can volunteers really replace trained public sector professionals, especially when the volunteers need to earn a living themselves?

Meanwhile, the support mechanisms that would allow people to donate more of their time to the community are being cut. Disabled Living Allowance, Child Benefit, in fact all benefits are being cut and/or capped. Social housing is being phased into 'affordable rent' - 80% of market rent unless circumstances are 'exceptional'. Cutting Education Maintenance Allowance and raising tuition fees will reduce access to further and higher education. None of these developments will foster a sense of security and resilience, both of which seem vital to the Big Society even starting to seed in an area.

I don't feel that I've got my head around the Big Society yet, but it doesn't look like anyone else has yet, either. The point that sticks out in my head is this, though. The reductions to public services, the cuts in benefits, and the retreat of the state are not uncertain. They are happening now. The Big Society is still potential, small-scale, and vague. It will work in some places but not others. It is characterised by a huge risk, that when the public sector withdraws, nothing will fill the space in some places. The government thinks this risk is worth taking and indeed seems quite keen on risk in general (just look at what they're doing, or rather not doing, with the economy). That's all very well for politicians, all they have to lose are votes. The majority of the public could find their life blighted if they make their home in a place where society remains that bit too small.