2011 February » DMU Policy Exchanges

Alistair Campbell talks to the DMU Politics Society

Big Society, Localism, Spending cuts, Uncategorized No Responses »

Feb 232011

Alistair Campbell came to De Montfort University last week to talk to the Politics Society. He was keen to promote the latest edition of his Diaries (1997-1999) as well as two novels – both of which have been nominated on separate occasions for the ‘Bad Sex in Fiction’ award! However, beyond the book promotion and declarations of love for Burnley football team, there were some key themes in his answers to students’ questions.

On Localism and Big Society

There was a sceptical back-drop to the discussion, with Campbell suggesting Big Society was ‘dreamt up’ without really thinking about the implications. It was suggested that the Prime Minister should consider the need for expert advisers in the wake of ‘idiotic policies’ such as selling off forests, which showed the centre didn’t know what the departments were doing. Insofar as there is a philosophy to the Big Society, it is about people ‘sorting themselves out’.

On the Coalition Government

‘We’ve got a Tory government now’…

Whilst recognising that Conservative politicians like Osborne are on a completely different part of the political spectrum he seemed to show some respect for clear political agenda. Osborne, like Thatcher, has an ideological agenda to retract the state and Campbell seemed to respect politicians who have a clear vision.

On NHS Reform

Campbell suggested that if the government went through with reform that in, say, two years they would come to regret it – ‘it’ll become their poll tax’.

On Deficit Reduction

‘There are always alternatives…’

Whilst there is criticism in some of Campbell’s answers to the DMU Politics Society, on the current Government’s ideological and practical responses to the economic situation; some of the issues are not new to Coalition policies, but an extension of what was already happening under New Labour. The lack of co-ordination between departments and with the centre, for example, was something consistently targeted at New Labour, in spite of the former Prime Minister’s expert advisers.

So, Alistair Campbell came to answer students’ questions (and sell some books). The nature of the event meant that there was not a speech with a coherent focus, but instead a series of responses to a set of disparate questions; but nonetheless, this was a lively and entertaining peek into the mind of the former government spin doctor. We should also not forget that Campbell has moved on from the front-line political fray and so does not speak directly on behalf of Labour politicians any more.

The strength and speed of the Coalition government’s policies on Big Society, health service reforms, Localism and public spending cuts have perhaps taken the wind out of Labour’s sails in mounting a coherent opposition to the proposals. Let’s hope that the DMU Politics Society can get Ed Milliband to come to talk later in the year with a stronger message in the face of such sweeping Coalition government changes to our public services.

The Impact of the Localism Bill on Future Site Provision – One Big Fat Gypsy Accommodation Problem

Citizen Engagement, Localism, Spending cuts No Responses »

Feb 172011

As the fifth and final episode of the Channel 4 series Big Fat Gypsy Weddings aired on Tuesday night, the impact of the programme on the community, and on the perception of the community in popular discourse, cannot be underestimated. One of the issues which was touched on all too briefly in episode two of the series is the shortage of available accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers. Government data suggests that ther are 18,148 caravans in England of which 6,852 are on social rented sites, 7,627 on authorised private sites, 2,199 on unauthorised developments and 1,470 on unauthorised encampments. This disjuncture between the number of sites and the estimated population numbers demonstrates the continued lack of resources and sites for Gypsies and Travellers in Britain. Indeed, a variety of reports have suggested that 4000 more pitches are required (and some Gypsy and Traveller representatives say that this is an underestimation of need, indicating instead that there are at least 4,500 families with no official site to live on).

One of the principle causes of the sites shortage and unauthorised encampments has been a failure of policy implementation in the past. Recent legislation and policy has sought to address the shortfall in accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers, but this has not yet manifested in sufficient number of sites being built. The 2004 Housing Act created a statutory duty on local authorities to assess Gypsies and Travellers’ accommodation needs which were used to set pitch targets through Regional Strategies, which in turn should have led to local authorities identifying land for site development. The previous Government also provided capital grant funding for new site development. However, the new Conservative-led Coalition Government in England swept away the existing regulatory framework in the summer of 2010 by revoking regional strategies and announcing the abolition of Planning Circular 1/2006 governing planning decisions on site development, to be replaced with ‘light-touch guidance’.

There have been fights against this removal of regulatory and fiscal support for new site provision; for example the Cala Homes case which was brought to test the legality of the Secretary of State’s advice to councils to take into material consideration during planning decisions, the announced abolition of regional strategies. The first judgement found in favour of Cala Homes (the direction from the Secretary of State was unlawful) but the second judgement found there was no case for Judicial Review. A further example is the case brought by service users of the Roma Support Group against the cuts proposed by London Councils in their grants to charity groups. The High Court upheld the case based on the claim that the councils had failed to consider their equalities duty; and the Judge ordered them to re-run their process of consultation to include full equality impact assessments.

In an attempt to examine the impact of Government policy, the Travellers Aid Trust undertook research funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust which was led by a Panel Review of evidence on the impact of the Localism Bill on Gypsies and Travellers. Expert witnesses from Gypsy and Traveller communities, local government, planning and legal professions, representative voluntary organisations and the police all gave evidence on a range of questions examining the Localism Bill. For some, the notion of Localism per se (e.g. empowering communities to make decisions) was a ‘good thing’ but the ‘jury was out’ on whether Localism as presented in the Bill could actually work in practice.

The Panel (including Lord Avebury, Lord Boswell and Rory Stewart MP) attempted to establish the key areas of impact on the travelling communities. The Review has yet to report, but as a member of the Panel, I understood that, whilst there are myriad effects of the Bill on a number of vulnerable groups, the key issue for Gypsies and Travellers right now is accommodation shortage. A home can unlock access to health, education and employment, so it is a priority. Part 5 of the Localism Bill deals with the abolition of Regional Strategies – and this is a double whammy when linked to the withdrawal of Circular 1/2006. Fundamentally, there is a concern that although the regional framework didn’t produce as many new sites as hoped – it did give some imperative to defining accommodation need in numbers of pitches required, and it provided a framework which examined the need on a more abstract level and required head rather than heart decision making. Councils were obliged to show how they would meet need by including sites in development plan documents – this is all swept away in the Bill.

Decisions now will be made on a very local level which in the abstract may be a ‘good thing’ to empower citizens. However, local politicians’ notions of citizens do not always include Gypsies and Travellers. One could pick almost any district and find representation from a local councillor or MP campaigning against a new site on the basis that they are just ‘representing the view of their constituents’ – clearly discounting Travellers from their constituency. Of course there are notable exceptions, including councillors who are themselves Travellers – but these are the minority. Unless Gypsies and Travellers are seen as ‘citizens’ and ‘constituents’, how can they be empowered by the Localism Bill?

One aspect that particularly concerns Gypsies and Travellers is the idea of referenda in local decision making – there are suspicions that what will take place is ‘vocalism’ not localism. Local communities will now have a new framework for objecting to sites through a referendum. The Communities and Local Government department has undertaken impact assessments on the different aspects of the Localism Bill – including referenda. There are a number of assumptions including one that there is no impact on equalities duty or on human rights. There doesn’t seem to have been any investigation of the non monetised costs to society (e.g. a society that includes Gypsies and Travellers) of having these referenda. Yes, there will be a duty for local authorities to examine whether requests for referenda are ‘vexatious’, but Government don’t seem to have anticipated particular minority groups that could suffer under this proposed new way of ‘doing democracy’ – most notably, but not exclusively, Gypsies and Travellers.

The Localism Bill will impact on Gypsy and Traveller communities, unless steps are taken now, before measures are enacted, to mitigate the risks. Without the framework of Regional Strategies and Planning Circular 1/06 how will communities develop the number of sites needed? Will we see referenda as the basis for ‘vocalism’ against seemingly unpopular and marginalised groups, rather than as part of a true ‘localism’ which includes everyone? The Review Panel will make recommendations based on the evidence heard from expert witnesses, to mitigate the potential for negative impact – but will the Government take heed?

Written by Jo Richardson

Reflections on the Localism Bill: Putting the ‘government’ back into in Local Government?

Localism No Responses »

Feb 162011

The Bill hasn’t been around for long, but it is already time to take a step back and look at the big picture. Is the Localism Bill a refreshing, new approach by government based on trust and confidence in local government’s ability and skill to lead communities through troubled times; or, is the Bill little more than the continuation of the centralising approach governments have depressingly taken over the decades?

Those arguing for the former can point to section one and the general power of competence. General competence – if that is to be the same as the ‘general power of competence’ and let’s assume for the sake of argument that it is, would give councils the power to do anything that is not prohibited by law, rather than councils only being able to do those things expressly allowed in law. It is a complete reversal of the current standing of local government. General competence is a power which has the potential to fundamentally alter the relationship between local government and the centre and local government and just about anything else. But, the reaction to this new power has been strangely muted whilst concerns are loudly voiced about what the effect on councils would be of community right to challenge and community expressions of interest; changes to the planning regime with the abolition of regional spatial strategies and the Infrastructure Planning Commission and the introduction of new forms of neighbourhood planning; the housing and finance changes; the claw-back of EU imposed fines; and, almost every other point of detail in the Bill.

So what is the big picture? The potential embedded in the general power of competence can change the way in which local government goes about its business and will free-up councils to start emphasising the ‘government’ in local government. The power means a reappraisal of the relationship between the centre and the localities and a rebalancing of the relationship between Westminster / Whitehall and local government by making a localist presumption in central / local relationships. Central government would be faced with alternative centres of governing capacity that could act on their own merits. But, will councils do so? Already the reaction from many local government lawyers is cautious and guarded – that’s their job, of course – but, this is a political power which councillors should be courageous and imaginative in using because it doesn’t only rest on central government willingness to cede some power – it rests on councils using that power. General Competence should be seen as a liberating power not a restraining factor to be argued over and interpreted. Across Europe, general competence, based on a presumption of devolution and localism, provides councils with a strong position within constitutional arrangements. The challenge of general competence is that of a shift in attitudes and practices at both the centre and local government. Not forgetting, of course, the courts – we wait to see if they are willing to let ultra vires slip into the history books, without a fight.

Referendums are also part of the big picture – the injection into a local representative system of democracy of a dose of direct democracy. But, unfortunately, these local votes will be non-binding and therefore largely pointless and potentially a massive disappointment for any communities active and hard-working enough to get the 5% support from local citizens required to trigger a referendum in the first place. Let’s hope an amendment to the Bill makes the results of local referendum binding. After all, we elect our councillors by a public vote and no one demands that the outcome of the local election should be non-binding.

Now the downside: there are 142 references, so far, in the Bill to ministerial power, which if taken with the way in which ministers – of all governments – like to dictate to councils what they should be doing and how, is a worrying contradiction to the principle of localism. It shows that central government still doesn’t trust local government. On top of this there is the depth and detail within the Bill – like all others – which stifles proper consideration of principle and practice and sets up a lawyers’ paradise of interpretation and potential court action – back to ultra vires. Joshua Toulmin Smith [C1], in his rallying cry against centralisation called for legislation to only set out basic principles within which we could act and avoid the centralising and litigious tendencies of detail, instruction and guidance: he was right. If central government really is to localise, it will take more than one Bill to achieve it: it will take a massive change in attitudes centrally and locally and across the political spectrum.

Post by Colin Copus, Professor of Local Politics, Local Governance Research Unit, De Montfort University

[C1]There isn’t one, but you could refer to his book: Toulmin-Smtih, J., Local Government and Centralisation: The Characteristics of Each; and its Practical Tendencies, As affecting Social, Moral and political Welfare and Progress, Including Comprehensive Outlines of the English Constitution, Elibron Classics Series, 2005.

Is regeneration dead?

Big Society 1 Response »

Feb 142011

In the recent financial settlement for local government, many urban authorities have been hard hit by the removal of specific grants for regeneration. The tail end of the New Labour administration saw an erosion of faith in holistic regeneration initiatives at the neighbourhood level, as evidence emerged of the limited impact of policies such as New Deal for Communities. Has the time of holistic regeneration strategies now passed? Does this matter? What will we see in the future?

The early period of the New Labour government saw a proliferation of targeted policy initiatives aimed at ‘narrowing the gap’ between the most deprived places and the national average, with interventions across sectors including health, education and economic development. As evaluation evidence on these initiatives began to emerge, central government seemed to have a crisis of confidence in their ability to deliver. In a context of widening social inequality and slowing social mobility, evaluation evidence seemed to suggest limited lasting value of these resource-intensive interventions with positive change in the physical environment being coupled with limited change on social indicators such as worklessness.

Many commentators have framed New Labour’s neighbourhood regeneration policies as part of a ‘roll out’ of a wider neo-liberal project aiming to open up new market possibilities, for example the Housing Market Renewal initiative. Our take is that New Labour’s neighbourhood policies implied, certainly towards the end of its reign the opposite: a government in disarray without a clear strategic agenda. Neighbourhood policies seem to have addressed some of the symptoms of poverty in disadvantaged areas but have been reluctant to address some of the underlying structural problems. For all the criticism, from the standpoint of crushing cuts to local authority budgets and by extension to voluntary and community organisations it seems now that this period may seem a ‘golden age’ . The current Tory-led Coalition government seem ‘intensely relaxed’ about the potential for widening inequalities in all areas of social policy representing a radical break from New Labour’s paranoia about the so-called ‘postcode lottery’ but also a move away from targeted interventions in disadvantaged communities. Whilst ‘neighbourhood’ is a theme in the ‘Big Society’, it is not clear what will happen to existing structures or what new structure may be needed to deliver on this agenda.

Does the shift in economic context and a change of government herald a death knell for regeneration? Or does the current policy agenda create space for ‘localist’ neighbourhood regeneration? Can localist approaches develop and flourish in the context of a financial settlement for local government, particularly where urban deprived authorities have received the worst deal?

Catherine Durose is Senior Research Fellow in the Local Governance Research Unit at De Montfort University

James Rees is Research Fellow at the Third Sector Research Centre, University of Birmingham

Big Society and Spending cuts

Big Society, Citizen Engagement, Commissioning, Spending cuts No Responses »

Feb 092011

What does big society mean? This appears to mean different things to different stakeholders and until there is a coherent and shared viewpoint frictions and possibly fractures within the system will ultimately be a detriment to the very people it is intended to serve.

Is it about involving people in the community and transforming us in to a social society rather than a individualistic?

Is it about finding alternative revenue streams and methods of delivery for essential public services given the spending policy decisions of governments and local authorities?

Has due consideration been given to the current volunteers and their motivations which are predominantly beneficiery or ideologically driven.

The NCVO is highlighting problems in funding cuts to the volunteer sector under cutting the development of the “Big Society” but this is only a tip of the iceburg.

Volunteering and social activity is becoming a way for many young people to enhance CVs and stand out from the crowd. Even talk of future care benefits in return for volunteering.

There is a move to outsource large contracts to private providers who will commission third parties (including charities) to carry out the work. This is causing ethical concerns for volunteers working freely for profit making organisations at arms length.

Most of the current voluntery sector is beneficiary driven and this group seems to be getting least consideration in the debate, which is causing great dilemmas for many in the voluntery sector who are desperately looking for ways to mitigate the impact of cuts on their constituents.

We seem to be having a three way (at least) pull. Some seeing compassion as a commodity to be used for future benefits (CV or other rewards) as per the Public Choice theoretical background. Some seeing it as a way (possibly contractually) to devolve some essential services to unpaid volunteers in a a Principal-Agent relationship based on needs to meet minimum standards. And others seeing their advocacy and enhancements roles for beneficieries being replaced by the need to protect beneficieries by changing their ethos.

We are in danger of commodifying compassion and achieving the opposite outcome of the aims of encouraging a community ethos.

Conflict is vital to meaningful citizen engagement

Big Society, Citizen Engagement 2 Responses »

Feb 082011

Is conflict a threat to democracy or a re-vivification of mass participation that democracy needs? This was the question posed by Catherine Durose in her blog post last week.

If people feel excluded from the decisions being made about their own lives, their jobs, their families and communities, they will, in the end, react angrily. If they are repeatedly excluded, the anger will escalate and could result in a major, violent conflict. However, whilst conflict does include, as one potential end-point, a violent struggle, there are various stages within a large spectrum of disagreement and competing aims.

Arnstein[1] proposed in her ladder of participation that there were different levels and meanings in the struggle for citizen empowerment; ranging from manipulation, through to citizen control. Mid-points on the ladder are ‘consultation’ and ‘placation’ and they are firmly in the territory of tokenism in this model.

In the UK-Netherlands Partnership Programme in Science workshop on Citizen Governance in diverse neighbourhoods there was a degree of debate (perhaps even conflict?) amongst researchers on the role of consensus and conflict in the empowerment of citizens in the decision-making processes which governed their neighbourhoods. There were some arguments that consensus must be the starting point for meaningful empowerment; however might this insistence on consensus fall into the trap of consultation and placation? Conflict, as manifested in the verbalisation of competing aims, could result in more meaningful shifts of control to those voices which are traditionally muffled by the wishes of the majority in traditional consensus models of citizen engagement.

Conflict is symptomatic of a struggle for justice and, as such, conflict avoidance is not necessarily the way forward, as this can mean that tension and misunderstanding is just buried beneath the surface. Indeed, the presence of non-harmful conflict, for example the library ‘read-ins’ across Britain last weekend, is indicative of a healthy democracy at work. Dissenting voices are allowed. Where non-harmful conflict is engineered out of political processes in less democratic regimes, the only option for the growing discontent of those who have been excluded from decisions about their own lives, is a transformative demonstration which can result in protests and riots, such as in Tunisia and Egypt, which leave little or no room for negotiation with the extant political regime.

Physical conflict may be necessary in some political arena where there is no viable alternative for dissenting voices to be heard. In modern democratic processes though, such as in Britain, there isn’t such a physical urgency for conflict because processes for citizen engagement – such as voting in elections – should allow for competing views to be heard. However, there is relatively little engagement with the ballot box resulting in lower and lower electoral turn-outs in national and local elections. There are opportunities for engagement at a neighbourhood level – traditionally through tenant participation forums constructed and part-funded by service providers. The Conservative-led Coalition Government has a proposal to organise engagement through its ideas for referenda in the Localism Bill. But does any of this get beyond the placation stage in Arnstein’s ladder? Local authorities will need to ensure that any requests for referenda are not ‘vexatious’. But, unless something is irritating and aggravating (therefore causing conflict with the status quo) then change is unlikely.

Citizen participation cannot be shaped and ‘made to work’ by government or public service providers. There needs to be an apparatus for engaging in decision-making which is in part constructed by citizens – or the building anger at exclusion from the process leads to necessary physical conflict such as seen in Egypt. However the official apparatus of engagement at national and neighbourhood levels cannot be the entirety of the process either – it cannot be assumed that consensus is always best. Conflict is an important part of the participation process because it is driven by citizens rather than the state and it is often in response to a perceived injustice on a specific issue – the student marches in London, the library ‘read-ins’ – not all necessarily resulting in violence, but certainly a conflict of ideas and words.

Conflict has the potential to be violent and destructive if left to spiral out of control. However, within a context of governmental social and moral leadership (a debate on whether such a context currently exists is a debate for another blog…) conflict can also be creative and empowering and can kick-start meaningful citizen engagement.

[1] Arnstein, S, (1969) ‘A ladder of participation in the USA’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, July

‘Big Society’: over before it begins?

Big Society, Citizen Engagement 3 Responses »

Feb 072011

In the last week, three incidents have highlighted the precarious state of the Tory-led Coalition government’s aspiration for the ‘Big Society’:

First, Lord Wei – a life peer with an unpaid role in the Cabinet Office as ‘Big Society Tsar’ tasked with encouraging volunteering – resigned citing the incompatibility of working for free three days a week, earning an income to support his family and spending time with them.

Then, Liverpool City Council, selected as one of four ‘vanguard’ areas for the Big Society’, has withdrawn from the initiative arguing that spending cuts have undermined funding of hundreds of voluntary sector organisations in the city, perceived as vital to delivering ‘Big Society’ objectives.

Speaking today on Radio 4′s, Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, retiring head of the Community Service Volunteers (CSV) - named in the Guardian last year as the ‘Mother of the Big Society’ - has criticised the government for a lack of a strategic approach to delivering the ‘Big Society’ arguing that cuts to public spending are undermining efforts to encourage volunteering and community action.

The ‘Big Society’ is a flagship agenda for the Coalition government, one which Cameron has personally aligned himself to, but it is one that has come in for significant scrutiny and criticism. These recent events seem to dispel the myth that cuts in public spending will act as a catalyst rather than a barrier for the achievement of the Big Society, particularly in areas of social disadvantage where capacity in the voluntary sector may be more limited and where individuals already juggle work and family commitments.

Opening up politics: diversity in representation

Uncategorized 1 Response »

Feb 072011

Despite some progress over the last thirty years, following the 2010 General Election, national politics remains highly unrepresentative of the population with only 22 per cent of MPs are women and 4 per cent from an ethnic minority. The ‘archetype’ of a politician remains a white, middle class, middle aged man.

Recent research commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission conducted by De Montfort University and the University of Manchester has considered why diversity is so limited in national politics, questioned why this matters and explored what can be done to make national politics more representative.

The research looked across UK national political institutions from the House of Commons to the devolved assemblies considering the shared and different experiences of individuals from a wide range of under-represented groups looking at factors such as age, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, age and social class; and including those who were selected by political parties, elected andalso those who failed to achieve these goals.

The research found that certain groups are disproportionately disenfranchised through a series of mutually reinforcing factors: ‘prevent’ factors which serve to exclude individuals through discriminatory practices or prejudice; an absence of ‘push’ factors facilitating access to politics, for example university education and transferable professional skills; and a lack of action from political parties and institutions to ‘pull’ individuals into politics, for example through positive action or mentoring.

The researchers identified three implications which came from these findings. The first implication highlights the need to re-frame the debate about diversity; the second, emphasises opening up politics to encourage a wider range of candidates; the third, the need for radical debate.

The recent Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation argued that the case for widening representation of diverse groups in national political institutions was a matter of urgent concern for reasons of justice, to encourage greater effectiveness and legitimacy in decision making and to connect politics to a wider constituency. However, the purchase of these arguments in UK politics, which is dominated by party and most importantly, electoral concerns, needs to be questioned. A potentially more effective framing of the arguments about diversity would explore the potential electoral advantage - for example, through looking more progressive, relevant or modern - of fielding more diverse candidates and supporting under-represented groups.

For those individuals from under-represented groups who try to get involved in national politics, the barriers to difference are high, the pathways available are narrow, and the support they receive from institutions is limited. Significant change is needed to have an impact. While the composition of the House of Commons has become more diverse, those elected still conform closely to the model of the ‘archetypal’ politician. In order to encourage a more diverse range of candidates which will subsequently provide more diverse representation, it is important to widen the tolerance or acceptability of difference. One important way of doing this is to draw in candidates from a wider pool and encourage civic and issue-based activists into politics.

The recommendations put forward by the Speaker’s Conference focus on altering the existing political culture rather than transforming the structures which facilitate and perpetuate it. But the political system needs to be perceived as a whole in order for transformational change to take place. A debate about the scope and pace of change is required; arguably radical political change is needed to kick-start improvements in diversity.

Unfortunately the current proposals for electoral reform put forward by the Coalition government continue to neglect an explicit focus on diversity proposing a referendum on the electoral system and equalising of constituencies, but ignoring many of the reform options suggested by the Speaker’s Conference around opening up politics and supporting under-represented groups to become involved in politics and arguably more radical options, such as equality guarantees.

This research was commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and is published here and conducted by Catherine Durose (DMU), Francesca Gains (University of Manchester), Liz Richardson (UoM), Christina Eason (University of Sheffield), Ryan Combs (UoM) and Karl Broome.

Citizen participation: building consensus or facilitating conflict?

Big Society No Responses »

Feb 022011

Involving the community as a means of resolving seemingly intractable ‘wicked’ policy problems is now a long-standing pre-occupation of government not only in the UK, but across developed democracies. These objectives are underpinned by a positive view of community as holding some sort of resource, mutual trust and shared values which government can tap into and employ for its own policy agenda. The challenge of engaging citizens formed the basis of a recent workshop held in Amsterdam involving researchers and practitioners from across Europe and funded by the UK-Netherlands Partnership Programme in Science. One of the themes in a wide ranging debate focused on a key dynamic of citizen participation initiatives and activities that of consensus – often assumed in policy design and sought in practice – and conflict, which can emerge within communities where divergent interests, values and identities can come to the fore.

In the New Labour period, citizens were variously ‘activated, empowered and made the subjects of responsibilities as well as rights’ (Clarke 2005, 447). The New Labour period can be in part characterised by a tidal wave of initiatives, funding streams, governance structures and good practice guidance aiming to engage with citizens and encourage their participation in decision making and governance; as a means of addressing concerns about social exclusion and the democratic deficit. A series of criticisms have emerged about this activity:

Agenda setting: the ‘top down’ funding of many initiatives and the perception of community as a resource in delivering policy objectives, has meant that in numerous initiatives, government has set the agenda for participation without input from the community
‘Big tent’ politics: New Labour’s attempt to forge an electoral consensus is mirrored in the design of its participation initiatives which have been seen to privilege consensus and marginalise dissent
Contradictions: whilst some policies engaged positively with citizens, in other policies however, for example around anti-social behaviour and access to welfare, citizens were ignored, neglected and pathologised. The language and rhetoric of citizen participation is often about seeking the engagement of ‘real’ or ‘ordinary’ citizens and at the same time, dismissing those awkward citizens or ‘usual citizens’ who do not share the government’s agenda. These contradictions mean that no clear role for citizens or view of what citizen participation should look like has emerged from this period
Impact: uncomfortable evidence for the New Labour government emerged at the latter end of their administration, showing slowing social mobility, growing residential segregation and widening inequality and the limited lasting impact of many initiative

The new Tory-led Coalition government in the UK, formed in the aftermath of the May 2010 General Election, has continued to encourage citizens to get involved not only in decision making which affects their everyday lives but also in social action and in delivering services which they use. Perhaps the major shift though is in the economic context of citizen participation. In the New Labour period, citizen participation was often held together by the ‘glue’ of public funding, citizens could get involved in spending money allocated to their local communities for regeneration, health, education and so on. Now in a context of radical localist austerity that we now find ourselves in, the New Labour period is likely represent a high water mark of funding for citizen participation.

The lack of funding and the rhetoric of localism employed by the current government may mean however, that they are less able to structure the opportunities for citizen engagement. In the absence of government as an ‘honest’ broker and with the impact of the government’s deficit reduction strategy, will the ‘consensus’ which has been sought in citizen participation, the resources of social capital and trust perceived to be held in ‘communities’ which government is interested in, break down? Will citizen participation decline, become less representative of the wider community, be open to the few rather than the many?

Or is the opportunity to voice greater dissent within communities and between communities and government not necessarily a bad thing? We are starting to see increased action from citizens around the government’s agenda of cuts in public spending, from the student anti-fees protests to the recent TUC day of action. If participation is more ad hoc, less controlled by government and increasingly explicitly related to issues which citizens feel are important to their everyday lives, is this not more attractive and what government’s have – rhetorically at least- been trying to achieve for a number of years? Is this sort of action, a threat to democracy or a re-vivification of mass participation that democracy needs?

Building the ‘Big Society’ – what role for local government?

Big Society, Localism No Responses »

Feb 012011

The ‘Big Society’ agenda is the driving political vision of the coalition government as they seek to redefine and transform the relationship between citizens and the state.

It is primarily being driven forward by key Conservative politicians around David Cameron who originally saw it as a way to empower local communities to tackle Britain’s social problems. However, it is important to understand that a commitment to localism has always been a core part of the Liberal Democrat psyche and the idea that power should pass upwards from local communities rather than downwards from Whitehall is nothing new. Despite this common ground and shared values, there is the potential for tensions to arise around just how much the Big Society is linked to public spending cuts and radical reform of the way public services are delivered.

This agenda has provoked a significant amount of debate in local government circles, as stakeholders across the sector seek to map out how the key themes of citizenship, community empowerment and public service reform will work in practice.

The context that the sector operates within changed significantly in December 2010 when the coalition government announced the financial settlement for local councils and launched its flagship Localism Bill. The settlement was described by the Local Government Association as the, ‘toughest in living memory’ and leaves councils facing a £6.5bn funding shortfall over the next year. To compound the pain, councils in the most deprived areas of England are going to be hit hardest and fastest by spending cuts. In fact recent analysis shows that there is a direct correlation between the percentage reduction in grant and the local authority ranking on the indices of multiple deprivation.

Over the next few years, local authorities will understandably be focusing on implementing these deeply challenging spending cuts. However, the Localism Bill does begin to flesh out some of the practical ways in which the Big Society could be formulated. The coalition’s whole approach to localism has been presented as representing a radical change from the past with much more emphasis on communities doing things and getting involved in delivering public services themselves. This agenda around reforming the way public services are delivered has major implications for local government and could leave many questioning whether the emphasis in the Localism Bill on divesting public services to social enterprises is actually about bypassing local democracy rather than strengthening it. This is illustrated by Lord Wei, the Government’s Big Society Advisor, who described local government’s role in the Big Society as being to, ‘facilitate most, co-commission and deliver least’.

There are a number of issues raised by the Big Society that cut strategically across everything that local authorities do. If these remain unexplored and unresolved then stakeholders across local government could be left wondering whether the Big Society is more about shifting responsibility for spending reductions than really delivering on local accountability.

How will the Big Society be resourced?

The impact of deficit reduction measures raise serious questions about how the Big Society will be resourced on the ground. Local authorities will need to invest significant amounts of time and money in order to increase the number of third sector organisations capable of being commissioned to deliver services. At the same time charities are being hit by a range of funding cuts and are warning that this will impact upon their ability to deliver the Big Society.

How can strategic challenges be balanced with neighbourhood demands?

Local government is clearly facing a difficult fiscal reality, which means major challenges at a strategic level. Set in the context of these strategic challenges, the idea of having many different autonomous neighbourhood groups all defending their own interests without giving sufficient thought to the wider area risks severe fragmentation of public service delivery. Questions need to be asked about how local government can ensure an integrated coherent approach with local authorities fulfilling their place stewardship role and wider responsibilities as a community leader.

Is the Big Society the first stage on the road to marketisation and fragmentation of public services?

Running through the whole Big Society agenda and response to the current fiscal situation is an interest in and commitment to mutualism. For instance, The Coalition programme for government committed to empowering public sector workers to form employee owned co-operatives. However, echoing Kerry McCaughie and Mark Bramah’s previous blog posts on mutualism, there is a worry that mutualism could be a staging post to the further marketisation of public services. The government as yet don’t seem to have considered how to prevent further fragmentation of public services and protect social enterprises and co-ops from being bought out by private companies.

What about fairness and equity in service provision?

Key to the Big Society is the idea that government will move aside and let local people get on with things. This raises important questions around how to ensure fairness and equity in service provision. Not everybody has the same capacity to get involved in the Big Society with factors such as time, income and skills all being distributed unequally. This unfortunately risks public money being diverted away from more deprived areas and thus creating a situation where those with the most need; but the least opportunities automatically end up with the worst public services.

Does inequality still matter?

The golden thread running through the coalition’s approach to social policy is a shift away from targeted interventions aimed at tackling deprivation such as the area based grant. This means that the Big Society is weak on tackling inequality and there is a concern that it could actually exacerbate existing inequalities. This causes a problem for local government because as a place shaper and a community leader, some of the biggest issues it faces relate to the need to tackle inequalities. If local government becomes intensely relaxed about inequality then communities and individuals will still have problems that need fixing and will still be reliant on the state.

Do local authorities and local councillors have a role in the Big Society?

The relationship between the Big Society and local government remains unclear and there is very little reference made to local authorities in the Big Society policy documents beyond charities and social enterprises taking over the running of services. This is emphasised by growing concerns that the links between the Big Society agenda and radical public service reform pose real risks to the principles of democratic accountability. For instance, if services become locked into a complex contractual structure then elected members will find it more and more difficult to respond to the concerns of the community by changing service provision. There are also problems with the sheer scale of the Coalition’s plans to divest public services to social enterprises and the voluntary sector. There are very serious issues around how members will scrutinise and hold to account these multiple providers. Surely any devolution of power should be about an enhanced role for elected members at the heart of local communities, rather than scaling back their influence?

Opinions on the Big Society remain divided between those who see it as an opportunity to radically transform social policy and those who see it as a way to deliver public services on the cheap as public spending is cut back. It is an interesting debate and one that local government must engage with or it risks being left behind. However, what is most likely to define the future are the choices that local authorities make both in terms of how they respond to the spending cuts and the vision that local government maps out for itself and its role in local communities ‘beyond the cuts’

DMU Policy Exchanges