Big Society

Add a Comment

Comment by Tessy Britton on July 19, 2010 at 18:06

There is also a very interesting post by David Barrie here today with some great case studies.

Comment by Tessy Britton on July 19, 2010 at 17:27

Hi John/ everyone

Thank you to everyone who has commented on this very current discussion. This discussion here has been far more interesting than all the comment in newspapers together!

I have been finding it hard to cut through the political rhetoric to look at the underlying motives - and there is undoubtedly the spending cuts which is increasing suspicion about Big Society conceptually. But all that aside - does it really have the potential to inspire increased social responsibility and increased sense of community to a much wider group of people than the 'socially aware'?

It is beginning to feel as though there could be two Big Societies - the political BS, and the BS we are going to run away with and make our own. I rather like the idea of the second one... and see that it is already happening with the Big Society in the North event arranged by John Popham and Julian Dobson - fantastically quick and already nearly fully booked!

I have just read David Cameron's Liverpool speech of earlier today. I find that many of the ideas expressed here are quite inspiring - there is also much more clarity and potential for inclusion of many people's ideas - perhaps not 'baggy' anymore - but perhaps broad *enough*?

There are so many things that can go wrong on a practical/implementation level that I wouldn't even attempt to list them, so it is just as well David C has opted for the 'learning' model.

But overall, just at this moment, I personally think that it would be a lost opportunity if we weren't able to nudge some our (much needed) scepticism aside in order to see if these ideals, on this scale at least, are even possible. It seems that it could be, on a conceptual level at least, what many of us have been working towards in our own individual ways .... ?

Comment by John McMullan on July 19, 2010 at 14:57

Tessy, you must be happy with this - so many interesting comments!

Anyway, as Dave is doing the rounds TV, Radio & Liverpool the BS concept is clarifying, or is it? At the moment from the little Island it looks as though we are talking about BigEnglish Society and hearing little about the implications for the devolved administrations.

The initial clarity of an economic paradigm shift towards social enterprise and mutualised organisations delivering public services sits comfortably with my personal preferences (social enterprise is my day job) but how willing will the Councils, Departments and indeed the Trade Unions be with this type of shift, which may present even more difficulties for politicians.

I think Dave has a bit to do to convince all fo us that BS is not a smoke screen to obscure the deep cuts in public spending and I'm probably prepared as an optomist to accept that but would be more sceptical about the concept being a charter for the private sector to become the deliver of big national public service, so judgement reserved and watching the debate unfold.
John

Comment by Jeff Mowatt on July 19, 2010 at 8:32

Today I'm hearing the buzz that Big Society is being deployed on a "whole city" so just for the record here's an interview describing how this form of local development had succeeded in the Siberian city of Tomsk 6 years ago.

http://www.iccrimea.org/scholarly/economicdev.html

The interviewee relates how it began with an idea of compassionate capitalism for social purpose, something David Cameron has recently aligned with in his speech at Davos.

it wasn't welcome here in the UK with the founder being refused permission to to return to the UK. Seeking support I'd written to Baroness Thornton, then chair of the SEC at the House of Lords, to be disregarded.

My Labour MP Tom Cox responded testily "I don't know what kind of business you are involved in but you can't expect me to intervene...".

"The kind of business" was of course social enterprise, made government policy by his own party.

Cameron now wants to read back our script, but it's a decade behind what we're doing now. Spotlight on organised crime, which siphons resources from some of the world's most vulnerable children.

With Everychild leading a delegation to the commons last wee calling for children's rights, the right of protection within a family home, it's time for a call back to our PM for support.

Everychild have called on development agencies to embed child rights in their policy. The same call has been made to USAID 4 years ago and has yet to be heeded.

That's why David Cameron seemed appropriate for the target of this petition.

http://www.change.org/petitions/view/the_abandoned_children_of_ukraine

Comment by Dave Briggs on July 18, 2010 at 11:50

My attitude towards the Big Society flip-flops an awful lot, I have to say. I'm generally trying to stay positive, and I think it provides a platform for a load of interlinked activity to be considered in the round - as I explain in a rambling fashion in this blog post.

There is a nagging worry though that the current administration sees the Big Society as effectively acting as a bucket to collect all those services which will stop being delivered by government as a result of the cuts. In addition to this is the idea that because government can no longer support voluntary and community groups with grants, then again this role will be pushed onto the Big Society.

In principle this isn't necessarily a bad thing - people and communities taking some responsibility for delivering support that might be best coming from them than an instrument of the government. But I do have the concern that the reason for the vagueness about what it all means is because it's simply a catch-all way of getting people to do for free what councils can't afford to pay outsourcing companies to deliver.

Comment by Jeff Mowatt on July 18, 2010 at 10:14

Is it a sound bite - yes, to some extent, but also founded in the reality of early progress, which Conservatives may not actually be aware of.

Larry asked above whether this hadn't already been done. It's a good question.

My perception is that its an attempt to brand a Zeitgeist of social innovation which exists and is free from the influence of political parties. New Labour would have done the same I'm sure, if they'd seen it coming.

Now here's how it seems to be manifesting

First consider the many calls for reforming capitalism for social benefit, of which David Cameron's is one of the more recent. He'd been preceded by Bill Gates, who a decade ago had famously declared that "poor people don't need computers" dismissing an initiative for digital empowerment for the poor.

Venture capitalists, like Sir Ronald Cohen are falling in line admitting that capitalism has consequences.

Then there's compassion, specifically Karen Armstrong's Charter for Compassion which brings together spiritual leaders on what is common to all major faiths, doing as one would expect to be done by.

Then there's Soft Power. The news that candidate Obama justified his idea of a social innovation fund and department on social entrepreneurship by withdrawal from Iraq and again later as President announcing plans for 'people-centered and development-centered investment" in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Lastly, a recent delegation of charities calling on Uk government to place child rights firmly within international development policy, with a report making the point that MDGs for 2015 will not be met without ensuring the rights of children to a protective family home environment.

Riding this tide of goodwill there will no doubt be many who'll attempt to exploit it for their own ends, personal and political. It needs close scrutiny to ensure that there's a public mandate for whatever is done under the banner of Big Society. Stealth privatisation of the NHS will be the first to be wary of.

Comment by Laurence Howe on July 18, 2010 at 8:44

So far we have a lot of comments, but no one has started a discussion yet. Now might be a good time to begin one. The sort of discussion topics that have already arisen are:

1. Is the concept of Big Society real or is it just another political sound bite?
2. If it is real, how does it differ from past or existing initiatives?
3. Will it simply result in many fragmented, unconnected efforts or is it possible to make a cohesive whole?
4. How do we identify relevant communities and how could they be inter-related?
5. Would individuals identify with a single community or will it be possible to be a member of several different communities?

I have posted these into a discussion.

Comment by Peter Churchill on July 17, 2010 at 20:12

Participation in BS needs (a) time (b) opportunity and (c) will: more likely against a backdrop of shared values, embedded in everyday experience (think Blitz).

Many ways the gov't could help engender, eg education (compulsory Community Service to go with proper health education); coercion (CS as condition of benefit payments); propaganda (EE and Corrie learn civility); leadership (not self-promotion); lifestyle (incentive to join church or social club); recognition (local awards); breaking the ice (meet the neighbours).

One issue that I keep encountering: distance so often separates those in need from those emotionally closest. What can be done to help bridge the gap? From time brokerage to internet link ups? That still leaves those with no real bonds.

(Every time I see the acronym "BS" I think of something else...unfortunate.)

Comment by John Popham on July 17, 2010 at 19:35

Details of the Big Society in the North Launch event are here

http://rsafellowshipcouncil.ning.com/events/big-society-in-the-north
But hurry if you want to join us, we are nearly full

Comment by Larry Domingo on July 17, 2010 at 11:39

Is there anything really new in all of this? I know lots and lots of people who have been doing the things that the 'Big Society' is talking about. Is it about getting more people involved or is it a new concept? Also, how are we going to do with the transition from Supporting People in the community to this new Big Society thing? What about governance or are we just going to let people ‘get on with it’? Yes, as always, the devil is in the detail.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• Next ›
• Page