On the Big Society
First posted at 13:44GMT on 19/11/09 by Hilary Cottam
This week David Cameron gave his big ‘poverty’ speech. The press are still chewing it over and profoundly disagreeing about its implications. A ‘meaty’ speech, was the verdict of Ben Brogan in the Telegraph. ‘Incoherent’ and ‘utterly duplicitous’, claimed Madeleine Bunting on the left.
From Participle’s perspective, David Cameron’s speech is welcome. Firstly because he has brought centre stage the big social challenges we are focused on. Secondly because he has put his finger on a number of issues that are so evident to the families and communities we work with. Current models of both service delivery and welfare reform are failing to connect to people’s lives in ways that foster and support deep and meaningful change.
That said, there seem to me to be two central flaws in his argument. They matter because the way we frame the problem is likely to determine the solutions proposed.
Cameron writes about the suffocating state, but he is absolutely silent on the rapacious market, to which the New Labour state has been so subservient and so closely connected. It is too simplistic to say that human kindness has been squeezed out by the state. Certainly target driven public services have squeezed out the space and time for human relationships. Their relentless, palliative focus has also forced people to categorise themselves as needy in order to receive support, which can squeeze out resilience and responsibility.
Cameron is also right that feverish social engineering commanded by Westminster will not bring about change, but neither will ‘nudging’ in the context of entrenched poverty and increasing inequality. Ultimately all our current service targets are economic – they support an overarching market objective of economic growth. Human factors – the non-measurable elements of trust, time, friendship, human relationships are squeezed out within this market driven framework, no matter who is responsible for delivery – the state or the private sector.
This brings me to the second problem with Cameron’s thesis – his views on inequality.
Inequality is at the heart of the matter. Cameron approvingly quotes Wilkinson, author of the Spirit Level whose work shows that the more unequal a society, the worse every quality of life indicator. Bizarrely in his speech, Cameron then goes on to discuss how it is about redistribution between the middle and the bottom. But, as Wilkinson himself has commented, in reaction to the speech; ‘Bringing down the top incomes is very important.’ Wilkinson imagines income distribution in society as if we are all points on a piece of elastic, explaining that, if you pull out the top further, then everyone below gets spread further apart.
Longitudinal research shows there is a clear correlation between income inequality and social glue. Britain is one of the most unequal societies in the world. Unless we are willing to talk about and address this disparity, neither a re-imagined state nor an army of social entrepreneurs can build Cameron’s big society.
These are some of the structural issues that Participle seeks to address with our mission statement (Beveridge 4.0) and our work with families and communities across Britain. We have argued for a capabilities approach – a model that would invest in fostering a different value set including relationships. And in our practical work we are learning what it takes to bring this about – often with the most troubled families in the most isolated communities.
In this context we welcome Cameron’s support for social enterprises such as the ones we are growing, but we would like to push him on the framework in which these enterprises are currently expected to operate. We find in our work that the community energy Cameron seeks to foster is alive and well. Circle – our enterprise providing a new form of elder support in London cannot handle the numbers who want to work and volunteer for us. Loops – our new universal youth service has shown in an early pilot stage that businesses and communities are prepared to contribute to providing experiences and reflection sessions for all young people – they have just never been asked before.
To thrive and sustain themselves over time, these and other initiatives across Britain need a different framework in which to operate. Embedding change within communities takes time and cannot only be measured by economic indicators. It is all too easily strangled by expensive bureaucratic frameworks - protection policies for example, that actively work against transparent, caring human inter-action. We need a culture that welcomes a broader set of ideas about problem solving – not a centralised, one solution fits all approach that we have seen over the last 20 years.
It is difficult work and those who support change at the front line need to be properly paid and emotionally supported – not fobbed off with the trappings of ‘professionalisation’. This will not make it more expensive – quite the contrary Participle’s work shows that significant financial savings can be made but resources need to be distributed right to the community level and again we need frameworks that facilitate this.
Ultimately however all these ideas, the efforts of Participle and our activist siblings can only act as sticking plaster in a nation of increasing inequality. Let’s hope that Cameron really is listening to Richard Wilkinson and his colleagues
From Participle’s perspective, David Cameron’s speech is welcome. Firstly because he has brought centre stage the big social challenges we are focused on. Secondly because he has put his finger on a number of issues that are so evident to the families and communities we work with. Current models of both service delivery and welfare reform are failing to connect to people’s lives in ways that foster and support deep and meaningful change.
That said, there seem to me to be two central flaws in his argument. They matter because the way we frame the problem is likely to determine the solutions proposed.
Cameron writes about the suffocating state, but he is absolutely silent on the rapacious market, to which the New Labour state has been so subservient and so closely connected. It is too simplistic to say that human kindness has been squeezed out by the state. Certainly target driven public services have squeezed out the space and time for human relationships. Their relentless, palliative focus has also forced people to categorise themselves as needy in order to receive support, which can squeeze out resilience and responsibility.
Cameron is also right that feverish social engineering commanded by Westminster will not bring about change, but neither will ‘nudging’ in the context of entrenched poverty and increasing inequality. Ultimately all our current service targets are economic – they support an overarching market objective of economic growth. Human factors – the non-measurable elements of trust, time, friendship, human relationships are squeezed out within this market driven framework, no matter who is responsible for delivery – the state or the private sector.
This brings me to the second problem with Cameron’s thesis – his views on inequality.
Inequality is at the heart of the matter. Cameron approvingly quotes Wilkinson, author of the Spirit Level whose work shows that the more unequal a society, the worse every quality of life indicator. Bizarrely in his speech, Cameron then goes on to discuss how it is about redistribution between the middle and the bottom. But, as Wilkinson himself has commented, in reaction to the speech; ‘Bringing down the top incomes is very important.’ Wilkinson imagines income distribution in society as if we are all points on a piece of elastic, explaining that, if you pull out the top further, then everyone below gets spread further apart.
Longitudinal research shows there is a clear correlation between income inequality and social glue. Britain is one of the most unequal societies in the world. Unless we are willing to talk about and address this disparity, neither a re-imagined state nor an army of social entrepreneurs can build Cameron’s big society.
These are some of the structural issues that Participle seeks to address with our mission statement (Beveridge 4.0) and our work with families and communities across Britain. We have argued for a capabilities approach – a model that would invest in fostering a different value set including relationships. And in our practical work we are learning what it takes to bring this about – often with the most troubled families in the most isolated communities.
In this context we welcome Cameron’s support for social enterprises such as the ones we are growing, but we would like to push him on the framework in which these enterprises are currently expected to operate. We find in our work that the community energy Cameron seeks to foster is alive and well. Circle – our enterprise providing a new form of elder support in London cannot handle the numbers who want to work and volunteer for us. Loops – our new universal youth service has shown in an early pilot stage that businesses and communities are prepared to contribute to providing experiences and reflection sessions for all young people – they have just never been asked before.
To thrive and sustain themselves over time, these and other initiatives across Britain need a different framework in which to operate. Embedding change within communities takes time and cannot only be measured by economic indicators. It is all too easily strangled by expensive bureaucratic frameworks - protection policies for example, that actively work against transparent, caring human inter-action. We need a culture that welcomes a broader set of ideas about problem solving – not a centralised, one solution fits all approach that we have seen over the last 20 years.
It is difficult work and those who support change at the front line need to be properly paid and emotionally supported – not fobbed off with the trappings of ‘professionalisation’. This will not make it more expensive – quite the contrary Participle’s work shows that significant financial savings can be made but resources need to be distributed right to the community level and again we need frameworks that facilitate this.
Ultimately however all these ideas, the efforts of Participle and our activist siblings can only act as sticking plaster in a nation of increasing inequality. Let’s hope that Cameron really is listening to Richard Wilkinson and his colleagues