Rob Hopkins reports on a Transition Network conference dedicated to the Big Society:

(excerpt on introductory lecture only)

“Peter Lipman, Chair of Transition Network (who I don’t think will mind my attributing these particular words to him…), gave an overview of the Big Society to frame the discussions for the day.

He said that he became concerned that the Big Society idea was being rolled out and nobody seemed to be taking much notice of it, and that this day was inspired by a desire to understand it better and from a deep concern about what it coming towards us. He began by distilling out 3 underlying ideas that appear to be central to the thinking behind the Big Society:

* that state intervention and regulation, which were intended to promote social cohesion actually erode it.
* that the community and voluntary sector is better placed to improve society than the state, and
* that the private sector can help to ensure that it is done efficiently, and finally that there are no rights without a responsibility to consider the rights of others.

One of the more dubious philosophical tenets that underpins it is the idea that business is fundamentally benign. The Big Society is founded on 3 key proposals:

* radically reforming the public sector (what the state can do for you)
* community empowerment (what we can do for ourselves)
* philanthropic action (what we can do for others)

The government is proposing to train 5,000 Big Society trainers, but at a recent talk in the South West, those attending were told, following a question about how these trainers will be paid/funded, were told that once trained they would need to find their own funding! The Big Society is intended to introduce, through forthcoming legislation including the Localism Bill, 3 core rights:

* The Right to Buy
* The Right to Bid
* The Right to Build

While the rhetoric, Peter said, is about empowering society, the reality, once the cuts to be outlined in the Comprehensive Spending Review start to impact, could feel very different. While localism offers more influence for local people, it also offers a potentially greater role to NIMBY voices, and the proposal for planning gain to go direct to communities could lead to communities being ‘bought out’ by large developers. The government is also launching what it calls the ‘Responsibility Deal’, a “partnership between government and business which balances proportionate regulation with corporate responsibility”. Handing more power to business is a potential contradiction in terms of also trying to empower communities, it is not, by any means, an even playing field.

This is also all being presented in the context of deep cuts in public spending. The government has undoubtedly inherited huge debts, and is arguing that it has no choice other than cutting the state back, while presenting it as a good thing because the Big Society can fill the gap. He concluded by presenting what he saw as the threats it presents as well as some opportunities, although admitting that his list of the former was much longer than the latter…. . The threats were;

* That locally driven agendas could ignore wider societal goals (particularly climate change)
* Poor engagement and consultation could mean that agendas are set by vocal minorities
* Removal of state intervention and funding without real provision for needed projects
* Councils, such as is already being seen with Suffolk County Council, outsourcing all their services to the private sector.

The opportunities, he stressed, were still vague, but might be the potential for motivated, engaged communities to radically reshape themselves.”