End of the Big Society Options

[Simon Kirby]

Does Liverpool City Council's withdrawal signal the end for the Big Society?

Well yes, and no.

The leader of the council wrote to David Cameron "How can the city council support the big society and its aim to help communities do more for themselves when we will have to cut the lifeline to hundreds of these vital and worthwhile groups?"

Therein lies the problem. The idea, or to be fair, my idea, of the Big Society is that people do stuff for themselves, together, socially, as a society, without the support of the state. Letting go was always going to be the challenge for local government and Liverpool City Council's public abandonment of the Big Society shows only that they didn't understand what they were agreeing to.

So yes, I think the Big Society is dead, but I don't think it was ever a possibility. If it was going to generate funny-money revenue then the Big Society was going to be the latest thing for local government. Indeed, it would take some serious professional help to get the British public engaged in civil society. After more than a generation strapped into the local government matrix we need more than a bit of acupuncture and a rub down from Trinity to get us back on our feet, but why would local government want that? The local government industry is predicated on our feckless, whitless dependence so why would the industry engineer its own decline by empowering us?

Well it wouldn't, would it. Liverpool City Council, and I suggest local government in general, saw the Big Society as a threat and then reinvented it as just another administration gravy train which they'd ride with their third-sector buddies, and when the cash didn't appear Liverpool City Council got the hump.

It's the same story in Newbury. The third-sector organisations were nervous of the Big Society at first because it threatened their state funding, but now they've got with the programme they're bigging up the Big Society's dependence on local government bitty, and local government obliges its familiars with Big Society suckle.

I can't think of a more outrageous example of the Big Fat State than Newbury Town Council's handling of the grass-roots demand for allotment self-management. Allotment self-management is as old as the allotment movement and it's hard to think of anything more Big Society. There are self-managed sites around the country that are run by their tenants without any help from their local authority, and it would be as alien to these sites to depend on the state for support as it would any badminton club, golf club or bridge club. There is little more to running an allotment site than most any other social club, and there is strong support from a national society and active social networking. More than that it is recognised in the movement, and by local and national government, that allotmenteers in charge is good for people, and good for communities. Allotment self-management is the Big Society archetype. So the benefits make allotment self-management a no-brainer without even thinking about the cost to the tax-payer of state-management.

And this is the Big Fat State. Newbury Town Council won't let the service go because it is a £100k turnover industry for them, mostly funded by the tax-payer, so there's no way they'd let the service manage itself and lose all of that lovely money. So they suppress the debate, smear the argument, and marginalise the activists. And to put the cherry on the top, they create a £3.5k slush fund for their "Big Society" chums. You couldn't make it up.

I'd like to think that the Big Society was a genuine idea from the Conservatives, and I guess I am a bit of a tory boy so I believe it was, but if Tory High Command were serious about us re-claiming our dignity and not being Big State milksops then they need to provide a way for us to beat the Big Fat State, and they spectacularly haven't. Perhaps I'll write to Eric Pickles and tell him what's going on.

But on reflection I don't think I can be asked. I wish I'd taken the blue pill.

[Iommi]

This is why I am suspicious of dannyboy and user23's impartiality on this matter.

The government would like to see elements of their control devolved down to the end users. Why are dannyboy and user23 seemingly against it in this case. Even if it is that you are on a power trip. If self management was by election, your power trip would be short lived anyway.

As a tax payer, perhaps I should insist that allotments manage themselves?

[dannyboy]

This is why I am suspicious of dannyboy and user23's impartiality on this matter.

The government would like to see elements of their control devolved down to the end users. Why are dannyboy and user23 seemingly against it in this case. Even if it is that you are on a power trip. If self management was by election, your power trip would be short lived anyway.

As a tax payer, perhaps I should insist that allotments manage themselves?

Yawn,

I'm not against allotments being self managed. Seems to me in Newbury, the allotment holders were happy as things were. If they wanted self management, why was there no grass roots support for SK?

[Simon Kirby]

Yawn,

I'm not against allotments being self managed. Seems to me in Newbury, the allotment holders were happy as things were. If they wanted self management, why was there no grass roots support for SK?

The objective evidence was that 80-90% of allotmenteers wanted self-management. See here.

The problem was that the Council didn't want self-management so they smeared me, undermined the allotment society, and suppressed the self-management debate. While 80-90% might want self-management, pretty much 0% wanted it enough to fight the Council for it. That isn't to say they were happy with the Council's regime, and the Council are very careful not to invite any comment that would show otherwise.

The question to ask is: Why won't the Council ask us if we want self-management? It would cost nothing to put the question at the bottom of the bill that goes out next week.

"Would you like a meeting to discuss self-management. yes or no."

[Iommi]

The question to ask is: Why won't the Council ask us if we want self-management? It would cost nothing to put the question at the bottom of the bill that goes out next week. "Would you like a meeting to discuss self-management. yes or no."

Exactly, and dannyboy and user23 shy from that idea.

[dannyboy]

Exactly, and dannyboy and user23 shy from that idea.

I don't shy from it at all.


It would not be a fight if enough allotment holders asked for it. Why don't they? Why didn't they all get together after the proposed 'community hut' fell through & demand action? Why are they not supporting SK?

It is the silent majority.

[Iommi]

I don't shy from it at all.


It would not be a fight if enough allotment holders asked for it. Why don't they? Why didn't they all get together after the proposed 'community hut' fell through & demand action? Why are they not supporting SK?

It is the silent majority.

And you know this is the case? Anyway, why don't your 'mates' insist on self management?

[dannyboy]

And you know this is the case? Anyway, why don't your 'mates' insist on self management?

err, Sk himself said he had no support.

I have no mates. Why do you think I am on forums when normal people would be socialising?