Perhaps the biggest problem with the 'Big Society' is that no-one really knows what it means. My interpretation of Mr Cameron's speeches is that it seems to refer to an emphasis on volunteer groups and individuals taking over public services. Indeed, one of the key intellectual contributors to the Big Society, Philip Blond, has often spoken of it encompassing worker co-operatives and other mutual means of ownership.
Not many people object to the goals of the Big Society. Everyone would like to see more people volunteering. The bonds of social commitment are inevitably strengthened where people willingly decide to give up their free time to help those less fortunate than themselves. Worker co-operatives would also be supported, especially on the left-of the political spectrum.
So why am I so uneasy about the Big Society?
My problem is that Mr Cameron is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. The Comprehensive Spending Review resulted in a 28% cut in the local government budget. This represents a huge reduction in spending on local services. Councils are under a statutory duty to provide certain essential services, such as education and transport. In addition, many Councils are actively involved in the promotion of other projects, such as youth work and mental health support. They carry out these additional services by receiving modest central government funding. Given the whopping cut in the local government budget, the time is up for these extra facilities. There is simply no way in which a local authority will be able to maintain additional services in addition to their statutory commitments when faced with a 28% cut in funding.
This is why senior charity figures, such as Dame Suzi Leather, Chair of the Charity Commission, and Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, Chair of Community Service Volunteers, have argued so forcefully that Mr Cameron's Big Society agenda is a sham. How on Earth are people going to be able to effectively volunteer if the financial support is not there? For example, as a result of the Government's cuts, many libraries are being forced to close. As Dame Elisabeth asked, how are people supposed to volunteer in the local library if it is being closed down?
These are the uncomfortable questions about the Big Society that Mr Cameron cannot answer. The truth is that his destructive cuts package is wrecking any chance of a genuine culture of volunteering and civic engagement developing in this country.
Conservatives have sought to blame the need for the massive cuts in public spending on the last Labour Government. Here again, therefore, we see the great lie of British politics. I have argued against this before but just in case anyone is any doubt: Labour did not cause the banking crisis. The bankers caused the banking crisis.
The fact of the matter is that before 2007, when the financial meltdown began, Britain had the second lowest debt in the G7. So it's false to say that the Labour Government's reckless overspending created the deficit. Furthermore, up to this point, the Conservatives pledged to match Labour's spending plans. So they didn't think it was reckless overspending either. The other governing party, the Liberal Democrats, were actually in favour of increasing public spending. Any claim by the Government that the deficit is the product of years of Labour indulgence with the public finances is consequently (a) wrong, and (b) hypocritical.
Why did we end up with the largest debt after the financial crisis? The answer is simple. Britain was the most reliant on revenues from the financial services sector in the City of London. When the City went into sharp decline, so unfortunately did the entire British economy. The Government was forced to spend millions bailing out the banks while hundreds of businesses collapsed as a result of being unable to benefit from credit supplied by financial institutions. The Labour Government should take some blame for putting all our economic eggs in one basket by being so dependent on financial services. However, both main parties were to blame for this, none more so than the Tories who began diverting resources towards the City and away from manufacturing in the 1980s.
Mr Cameron is undermining his own Big Society by his massive cuts agenda. His ideological commitment to shrinking the state will always come before his desire to support civic engagement. He is seeking to convince people that he would love to see more volunteers but he has to clean up Labour's mess. Don't believe him.
Firstly the only people to blame for the deficit are the last government. When they came to power the deficit was approx £650 million. Gordon Brown then sold half of the country;s gold reserves at historic low prices. When the Labour government left power the deficit was approx 13 billion. Only 2 billion was spent on bailing out the banks so where did the rest go? Secondly the country was already in recession before the banking crisis started. The recession was caused by government, corporate and personal debt having got out of control thus causing a loss of market confidence. The loss of market confidence together with the housing crash in USA caused the loss of confidence in the banks. Finally if you don't believe that the big society already exists and has done so for many years just look at the RNLI, the Salvation Army, The Red Cross, The St.John's Ambulance, The Princes Trust, OXFAM, The British Heart Foundation, Macmillan Cancer Nurses, Guide Dogs for the Blind, the list is endless and those volunteer funded and staffed organisations have existed for years without government funding and regardless of recession. Finally if council's such as Birmingham City Council didn't pay its leader over £200,000 a year with a huge non contribution pension funded by the tax payer they wouldnt need as much funding.
ReplyDeleteMark, I agree with you that a recession preceded the banking crisis (in fact, a causal relationship as the structured debt bundles would not have come under scrutiny and found to be of questionable worth had they not been losing value slightly in the marketplace).
ReplyDeleteHowever, the recession was cyclical and long overdue, and like the crisis with structured debt it began in America, to whose economy we are significantly linked.
Mark, if all of what you say is true, why did both governing parties agree to match (or in the case of the Lib Dems, increase) Labour's public spending? Also, if the crisis was caused by Labour overspending, why was it that we had the second lowest deficit in the G7 before the banking problems?
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't spending on schools and hospitals that caused the economic downturn. It was the product of recklessness in the financial sector.
Your point on the Big Society is bonkers. If all volunteer groups had to survive entirely on private finance, it is undoubtable that we would have fewer such groups. People simply don't have the money to pick up the bill, least of all at this time. That is why state support is essential. Cutting it will, almost certainly, lead to a decline in volunteer spirit and civic engagement.