Defining the Big Society

Peter Cheney considers what David Cameron’s main social policy means in practice and the reaction so far in Northern Ireland.

Is the state good or bad for society? Your answer to this answer is likely to influence what you think of David Cameron’s grand plan, for it automatically means less government. A rich sense of community will be revived, supporters say, while critics dismiss it as a cover-up for spending cuts.

The Big Society’s author now has the authority to put it into practice and agendaNi is starting a new series to explore its real meaning. This first article looks at its definition, main principles and possible actions at a national level. agendaNi has also found similar policies from the Northern Ireland parties.

Some of his election posters (pictured across these pages) add a bit of ‘Blitz spirit’ to the idea, suggesting that the Big Society is the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ after all the hard work of fighting the deficit.

Theory

Cameron’s starting point is that society is broken and the state can’t solve all its problems. In fact, the state has become part of the problem by doing what people should do for themselves. With less money to go around, the state will become smaller and needs others to fill the gaps.

One nation Conservatism, espoused by Cameron, goes back to Benjamin Disraeli, who saw the rich as having a duty to help the poor in Victorian Britain. Its roots may well be older.

Edmund Burke, as Prospect magazine pointed out on 5 October, could be the Big Society’s “patron saint”. He criticised “aggressive individualism” and the “intolerant state” and the Big Society appears to occupy the middle ground between the two.

Cameron reaffirmed the Big Society as his “great passion” in a speech at Liverpool Hope University on 19 July.

The Big Society, he explained, was about a “huge culture change” where people don’t always turn to officials for answers “but instead feel both free and powerful enough to help themselves and their own communities.”

Cameron admitted that society would not just “miraculously … spring up and do more” as the state cut back. Government help was needed to build up the Big Society, and this would shift the public sector away from the usual top-down approach.

In practice, the Big Society had three main strands:

• Social action – “daily decisions by millions of people” to give their time, effort and money to good causes;

• Public service reform – getting rid of ­“the centralised bureaucracy that wastes money and undermines morale”, giving professionals more freedom and opening up public services to new providers;

• Community empowerment – neighbourhoods needed to be “in charge of their own destiny” and feel that they can “shape the world around them”.

Three methods to “galvanise” the strands were also put forward:

• Decentralisation – pushing power away from the centre, even further than local government and down to communities, neighbourhoods and individuals;

• Transparency – information gives people power to find solutions e.g. data on when and where street crimes took place could help residents set up a neighbourhood watch;

• Providing finance – new public service providers would be paid by results, promoting value for money and innovation.

All dormant account money allocated to England will be put into a Big Society bank, to provide start-up capital for smaller providers. Private sector investment will also be leveraged.

In four ‘vanguard communities’ across England, officials will help local people put their ideas into practice and get round any bureaucracy that gets in the way. Early ideas include generating energy at a local level and using volunteers to keep museums open for longer.

His words have been backed up by the launch of the independent Big Society Network (of social entrepreneurs and voluntary organisation) and plans for National Citizen Service. Social entrepreneur Nat (now Lord) Wei has been appointed to advise government on the concept.

Nick Clegg endorses the Big Society, saying that it means the same as liberalism, empowerment and responsibility. However, it’s not an original Lib Dem idea and MP Julia Goldsworthy labelled it as “patronising nonsense” before the election.

In the Labour leadership election, Ed Miliband rejected the Big Society as “a 19th century or US-style view of our welfare state … cut back the welfare state and somehow civic society will thrive.” Former minister Hazel Blears is supportive as long as there is fairness, proper funding and long-term support for new service providers.

Many Tories are also unsure. There was no applause when Cameron talked up the idea at the Tory conference. The party’s right is more comfortable with George Osborne and his neo-liberal thinking.

Relevance

The Coalition Government has most freedom to promote the Big Society in England, where it sets social policy. Some relevant ideas in the Coalition Agreement apply at a national level:

• extending the Freedom of Information Act (to improve transparency);

• simplifying the benefit system (to incentivise work);

• supporting the creation of neighbourhood groups across the UK.

The Conservatives still hope to introduce a tax break for married couples, to reward marriage and responsibility. Most policy, though, is devolved and the Executive parties have varying views on Cameron’s big idea.

It was, of course, endorsed by Ulster Unionists in their pact with the Conservatives. Every adult should be a member of an active neighbourhood group, the 2010 manifesto stated.

As a liberal, Alliance’s Stephen Farry sees pros and cons. He believes the state is often “not the most effective vehicle” to deal with social problems and thinks the Big Society concept “has the potential to rebalance the relationship between the individual and the state in a healthy way.”

When it is promoted by the Conservatives, though, there was an “inevitable scepticism” as it could become “a front for hollowing out” key public services.

“Civil society varies in strength from place to place, and there is a real danger that the more standardised approach of the state is replaced by a postcode lottery in service provision subject to the level of local capacity,” he warned. “This danger is as acute in Northern Ireland as any region. The pendulum must be swung back but great care needs to be taken over how far this can go.”

The SDLP is more sceptical and senses a contradiction.

“You can’t build a big society on small government,” said a spokeswoman. “The Tories don’t believe their own leader on the Big Society, not because it’s evil or bad, but because they don’t understand how it can be delivered from a man who takes his inspiration from Margaret Thatcher, a woman who famously said: ‘There is no such thing as society.’”

It was “maybe” a good slogan but “probably not” a genuine roadmap for the coalition.

Thinking alike

Northern Ireland faces the same basic challenge as Britain i.e. ensuring a stable society as public sector jobs and services are cut. Some manifestos and policy papers suggest that a local version of the Big Society will shape in the next Programme for Government.

The DUP, for example, strongly supports service provision by the voluntary sector, churches and other faith-based organisations. Its ‘Empowering Faith Groups to Benefit Communities’ paper points out that faith-based mentoring services and reading programmes are common in poorer parts of the USA.

Sammy Wilson wants faith-based groups to benefit from dormant accounts, as they turn down National Lottery funding.

The Timebank concept should also be extended to the province, according to the party. This encourages companies to give employees paid time-off for volunteering. Public sector employees could be encouraged to take similar days off during 2011, the European Year for Volunteering.

Alliance’s focus is on improving community relations. It wants to see an “exchange of views and best practice” with the rest of the UK and points out that Northern Ireland has expertise that can be shared.

Sinn Féin and the SDLP tend to take a more statist approach. Sinn Féin, though, calls for community farms and more allotments, bringing older and younger generations together. It also wants specific government targets to help develop the social economy sector.

In summary, the Big Society is hard to grasp because it started as a personal idea. Its changes in the tax and welfare system will affect the whole UK. Local ministers may ‘pick and choose’ other ideas tried out in England and some will come up with their own.

The concept is now clearer than before but the conclusion is far from predictable. Building a stronger society at the same time as cutting public spending is an ambitious aim but it also takes the UK into unknown territory. With so much staked on the Big Society, the history books will inevitably record its results as part of the Cameron legacy.