We’re a new (non-partisan) social enterprise trying to find our way in what seems like a very Big Society. Here’s some thoughts on our experience:
Outlook
The Big Society separates the third sector ‘moaners’ from the third sector optimists. It’s divided those who look back fondly on higher spending of the Labour government (who can’t quite come to terms with what’s happening), from those who are looking forward, getting on it with, and making the most of the opportunities the Big Society presents.
To be fair, I could be being a bit naive here.
If I was working for an organisation facing substantial cuts, I’d obviously see it differently. And from our position as a new and small organisation, this big new idea, introduced by a new government, means the playing field is a bit more level for us to get involved. Although competition is high, we’re not trying to muscle into a policy or administration with years of well-developed third sector links.
Naive or not, and without sounding like a cheerleader, I think it’s important that the third sector looks forward to make the most of the policy landscape of the day.
Plain talking
Having seen some amazing new branding from a few charities, I think we’re beginning to see the new administration and Big Society freeing up the sector to talk in plain English. It’s refreshing to see organisations just saying what they do. Saves time when you’re trying to find out. The freedom of not having to align your key message to seven different policy initiatives is good, regardless of how worthy those initiatives are. I do wonder, however, if over time the Big Society might get filled out with new buzzwords which we all start gradually mentioning as time goes by.
A big problem with plain talking about what we do, giving young people an influence in their education, is that I don’t really think the Conservatives will think it fits as part of their traditional approach to education.
That’s okay though, the Big Society doesn’t mean that we’re going to change what we believe in.
Disclaimer: I’m not sure if this is a Big Society thing. The freedom from buzzwords could happen when any new Government comes in. I’m not sure, I’ve only known Labour.
Vague
I’ve lost count of the number of coalition ministers who I’ve seen thrown by the simplest of questions; ‘what is the Big Society?’
No wonder the conference hall was strangely silent during this section of Cameron’s speech. It’s not very inspiring if the ‘salesmen and women’ of the policy are so unclear on what the policy actually is. I think this lack of clarity leads to two things: people who are involved in social action and participation get annoyed because they think the Government are implying that these are new ideas; and those who aren’t involved just switch off.
I get the impression that people working in the sector have got a better idea of what the Big Society might be, than the Government themselves. That might be not such a bad thing.
On the positive side, this vagueness means that third sector organisations have an opportunity to use more plain English (see above).
And although there are headlines about the Big Society (somewhere), it seems like the details are very much up for grabs.
I heard Gove talk last night at a Teaching Leaders graduation event. I’d talked about this with a friend recently, and – whether you like him or not – – seeing him give his speech made me agree that he comes across as very ideological.
I feel the Government know what they want to do, but probably needs some help from us to get there. Frustrated civil servants agree, so I guess what I’m saying is that the lack of detail presents opportunities.
N.B. Despite this, from what we’ve seen I think there are questions about how vague the Big Society actually is. Take the National Citizen Service pilots, for instance. Innovation was encouraged, but only within a very restricitve and scheduled delivery model!
Talking
Big Society has led to more people from more organisations talking to one another. That’s definitely a good thing, because I think the third sector is often pretty bad at collaborating. It’s understandable in some ways; two private organisations come together to make money. It’s more complicated to get together to ‘make more good’, although a lot more important.
Being engaged with the National Citizen Service – in a very minor way – has been a useful experience, because it’s got us talking with a range of organisations who we’d like to work with in the future. This has happened because of tight deadlines and the need for consortium bids. It’s great for us to be getting the word out about our work. These links wouldn’t have been made without the Big Society.
On the other hand, tight deadlines sometimes lead to desperation. To some extent, you can see this happening with the National Citizen Service pilot deadlines. Ill-thought through partnerships, could easily lead to poor delivery. We’ll see.
And even if the Government can get the message across to people what the Big Society is, the speed at which they’re trying to prove it’s a good idea could undermine everything.
Motives
We need to cut UK spending – most of us are agreed on that . Obviously the rate at which we do it is up for debate, but it needs to happen.
This confuses the idea of the Big Society for many because they think it’s designed to save money. I think that’s a very big part of it, but also part of the Conservatives natural desire for a smaller state. What is worrying is when the first bit of that sentence is used to sneak in the second: cuts being used as a reason to do things that the Conservatives really want to do anyway.
The Government’s response to the Browne Review exemplifies this: it’s not just about creating more money for universities, it’s about fundamentally changing who pays for higher education in the UK. Somehow, they’ve got the Lib Dem’s fooled.
The Conservatives should be honest about their intentions, and this helps to undermine the idea of the Big Society for me.
Greg Sanderson
PS. Love to hear your thoughts using the comments below..