As part of the current Coalition government’s deficit reduction strategy, October’s Comprehensive Spending Review handed local government the toughest financial settlements across the public sector. This budget cut was passed down to local authorities with Manchester City Council receiving one of the harshest and unfair financial settlements - compounded by the loss of substantial additional funding which reflected the level of deprivation in the city - resulting in a front-loaded budget cut of 25%.

Manchester City Council recently announced a plan to make these savings - £109 million in the next financial year and £170 million in the following year-  proposing: the cutting of 2000 jobs, 17% of the current workforce; a cut in children’s services of 26%; 21% in adult services; along with the closure of public toilets, libraries, leisure centres and swimming pools. The council has been attacked by central government, for making party politics by targeting front line services. The council has responded by saying that this level of cuts simply cannot be absorbed through efficiency savings.

One of the swimming pools under threat of closure is in Levenshulme, a diverse and deprived area of south Manchester. Levenshulme is also the place where I live. I have used the baths two or three times a week since I moved to the area nearly three years ago. The baths are always busy and act as a social hub for the area, being well used by a wide cross-section of the community including local primary schools.

On 9 February, following the announcement of the proposed closure, over 150 people gathered outside the baths in a spontaneous protest which received national media coverage. A community email list, Facebook group and online petition were quickly organised. On the Friday of that week, a meeting – attended by over 200 people – was held at the local community centre, Levenshulme Inspire to plan action to save the baths. This action meeting was followed by a protest the following day where over 500 people marched along the high street to the baths. Regular action meetings have been held weekly, other protest and fundraising events have included a ‘swim in’, a banner making workshop, a beacon event which made the link  between the closure of the baths and the Olympic legacy pledge.  A local youth group is now making a documentary about the campaign.

The campaign has been by the community and for the community and particular mention should be made about the activities of the children from local primary schools which regularly use the baths. Pupils made banners, signs – many saying ‘I learnt to swim at Levenshulme Baths’! – but most impressively, several spoke at meetings and presented about the importance of the baths to them and why they should be saved.  

This campaign is undeniably political. But there has been a strong consensus amongst campaigners that it should not be party political. Indeed all three of the main parties have received criticism about the proposed closure. Councillors and local MPs have had an opportunity here to really be champions of the communities they espouse to represent and it is one that shouldn’t be squandered by political point scoring which only angers the community further. Councillors have however listened to this strong campaign from the community and made a u-turn and have now asked officers to find funds for a modern, most cost-effective facility for Levenshulme and to keep the existing baths open until this replacement is available.

The decision to save Levenshulme Baths has been met with a degree of surprise and a great deal of relief and happiness in the community. Moreover, it has given confidence that community action can work even in the seemingly most difficult of economic situations. Being involved in this protest has been inspiring not only for its impact, but for the energy, organisation and enthusiasm of the campaign. The lessons I will take from this campaign are: believe you can succeed, act quickly, get organised, be inclusive and try and make it fun.

The wider campaign against the cuts in Manchester continues with the real concern that whilst Levenshulme Baths may be saved, it is likely that another public service in Manchester will be hit. For all its espoused enthusiasm for community organising and action in the so-called ”Big Society’, the Coalition government is likely to find that much of this action is likely to be resistance to its policies as cuts begin to impact on the lives of ordinary people.

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.

 ’Neighbourhood’ has been recognised as a space that citizens identify with, feel a sense of belonging and where their concerns are in sharpest relief. It is also an enduring concept giving a spatial focus to a range of policy areas. Neighbourhood was prominent in policy particularly in the early part of the New Labour administration and this focus seems to be continuing with the Coalition government’s agenda of the ‘Big Society’. But, how useful will existing neighbourhood structures prove in delivering the civic objectives of the ‘Big Society’? Our research has shown that many examples of neighbourhood working, both those created in the UK under the New Labour administration and internationally, have been primarily ‘invited’ spaces created by the state, as opposed to ‘popular’ spaces outside of conventional political structures established by citizens which the ‘Big Society’ seems to aspire to (Lowndes and Sullivan, 2008).

The Coalition’s aim for the ‘Big Society’ is to involve communities in social action and the delivery of public services. The Coalition Agreement and recent Localism Bill refer to encouraging volunteering, training community organisers and supporting the creation of neighbourhood groups. The Agreement also sets out an objective to expand the role of mutuals, co-operatives and social enterprises in public services. Policy pronouncement have also sought to promote decentralisation and democratic engagement, aiming to end the era of ‘big government’, removing bureaucracy and giving ‘new powers to local councils, communities, neighbourhoods and individuals’. Following in the tradition of politicians to say something three times to prove their seriousness, Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (CLG) has asserted that his priorities for government are ‘localism…  localism, and… localism’ (2010).  Whilst it does matter who initiates and sets up neighbourhood structures, there is no ideal structure. Research from Durose and Richardson (2009) has suggested that local authorities have struggled to deliver on multiple and potentially competing objectives for neighbourhood working to move beyond their ‘comfort zone’ of service provision to deliver on civic objectives and opportunities for direct citizen participation and community involvement. Elected members in many localities can often feel their role and electoral mandate is threatened by community representatives and wider participation.

Yet, community control does come with its own risks. Community initiated neighbourhood spaces can often lack capacity and communities can struggle to sustain these spaces over a long period. Neighbourhood initiatives can often be insufficiently strategic and can be captured by an unrepresentative portion of the community. There remains a significant question about the appetite or interest in the ‘Big Society’ from communities.

Evidence from the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal evaluation suggests that ‘invited’ neighbourhood spaces provide an important complement and catalyst for ‘popular’ activity. Wider evidence has suggested that ‘invited’ spaces can assist in building capacity within the community and act as a ‘broker’ within the community helping to ensure inclusion. Moreover, community action does take time to develop and often needs ongoing support. It seems that some communities are more ready than others for the ‘Big Society’. Rather than reducing the role of the state, in disadvantaged areas, it may increase demands on the state.

The ‘Big Society’ has potentially serious consequence for equality in opportunities and outcomes in deprived communities. These concerns make the need to retain, if reform, neighbourhood structures, particularly in disadvantaged areas more important than ever. Yet, the call for the ‘Big Society’ comes however, at a time where the funding available to sustain neighbourhood working is in question. A context of radical local austerity may undermine the ‘Big Society’ rather than foment it.

This blog post draws on a forthcoming paper by Catherine Durose (DMU), Jonathan France (ECORYS), Liz Richardson (University of Manchester) and Ruth Lupton (LSE)

© 2010 DMU Policy Exchanges Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha