Forum Home → Discussion → Access to justice and advice sector issues → Thread
‘Big society’ cannot be build on the ruins of services
Attached link to Guardian article where Paul Treloar, LASA’s head of policy and communications, argues that independent social welfare law advice services are key to the delivery of the ‘Big Society’ -
Paul is keen to hear your views in response.
Are replys going here or is there somewhere else?
Thanks
Comments on the Guardian site would be most welcome but equally happy for robust discussion here as well.
Q1. What is the Big Society?
As we all know volunteers join organisations for a variety of reasons. One of the most powerful and aspirational motives is the hope that the experience gained will lead to paid work, either within the host organisation, or a similar body. In my own very small agency, at least three people used their experience to move into full-time paid work (one as a qualified social worker, one as a mental health support worker and one as an adviser in my team). In many parts of the country the ‘typical’ volunteer has vanished, largely because households now need two wage earners to make ends meet. Apart from the very obvious supervisory issues, stripping out the resources to pay staff will send a very clear message to many potential volunteers: i.e. there’s no point. That’s a Big Mistake.
Q1. What is the Big Society?
I must admit that I am not entirely sure. However, as I alluded to, it would appear that whatever it is, whatever the Big Society may be or may become, it is evident that it is here to stay for the meantime. From various quotes, it seems that there are clear overlaps between what Mr C thinks a Big Society can achieve and what a thriving independent advice sector can deliver for hundreds of thousands of citizens, potentially.
Perhaps I’m wrong. May be I shouldn’t engage at all with a discredited policy. But the need to make ourselves relevant and to tell people why what we do is important has never felt of greater importance to me. This is about standing up for all the people who are apparently at the hub of this government’s revolutionary thinking.
Half a million people at least who could be disenfranchised by losing the ability to receive independent legal advice on problems that interrupt their capacity to involve themselves more widely in what’s going on around them. I’d like to think that we could raise a bit of an argument about why such a strategy isn’t necessarily the best course of action but more than happy to take other suggestions.
There is no such thing as the big society unless the means of production, distribution and exchange are owned by the many and not the few and where less than 1% of the population own most of the country’s wealth, no matter how you spin it.
Apologies, but I have just chanced upon the following inquiry by the Public Administration Committee, which is looking into Government proposals for the “Big Society”, closing date for evidence being Friday 18 March 2011.
The Committee is calling for evidence on the following issues in particular:
1. A definition of what the ‘Big Society’ is or should be.
2. The impact and consequences of reductions in public expenditure on the Government’s ambitions to deliver its vision for the Big Society.
3. The role of and capacity for the voluntary and community sector to deliver local public services including the appropriateness of using charitable income or volunteer labour to subsidise costs.
4. Possible problems and challenges from increased commissioning of public service provision from the voluntary and community sector as envisaged by the Government.
5. The right to form employee-owned public service co-operatives including the resources available to co-operatives, proposed powers, and rules governing their operation.
6. Governance and accountability issues arising out of different organisational forms of social enterprises and co-operatives; and the participation of voluntary sector and community groups in greater public service provision.
7. The implications for central government and for the civil service of policies which require them to promote and to enable, rather than to manage and to direct, public services.
8. The place of local authorities in the transfer of power from Whitehall to communities and the role democratically elected local councillors should play.
9. Potential conflicts with other aspects of public service delivery, such as individual focus of personalised public services or universal provision and uniform standards of public services (i.e. avoiding postcode lotteries).
I might try to knock together a quick response from Lasa, taking in some of the points above where possible, but any other contributions are more than welcome.
Interesting local story from Sutton Guardian, with Mr Cameron being challenged over Big Society with regards to benefit cuts.
An ex-drug addict has challenged David Cameron over the ‘Big Society’ initiative, after Government cuts threatened her community organisation with closure. Annys Darkwa, who set up St Helier-based Vision Housing in 2007, after overcoming a drug addiction, said cuts to crisis loans for vulnerable ex-prisoners by will put her social enterprise out of business.
The Middleton Road organisation, which is heavily dependent on charitable donations, finds homes in Merton for homeless ex-offenders – who must claim the loan from the job centre immediately to pay the rent.
But she said staff were beginning to refuse the loans after changes made by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) on Monday, April 4.
Cameron challenged by St Helier ‘Big Society’ organiser over benefits cuts
Also came across another interesting analysis from the Chief Executive of Birmingham Voluntary Service Council on the impacts of cuts upon the Big Society.
From the list published, it was clear that the voluntary sector would be bearing a significant brunt of funding reductions. From Citizens Advice Bureaux and rape crisis centres to HIV-prevention advice and Asian women’s services, the list also made clear that many of the cuts will hit hardest at those who are already marginalised within our communities. It’s a sobering thought that the examples given are only a tiny proportion of those to come.
Surely, now more than ever, we need to agree on a model – or at least a common language of impact – which enables us all to properly assess whether the changes we’re proposing to public services are really going to have the impact we desire – or one that’s far worse.