see discussion overview

Related

Will David Cameron's 'Big Society' really change people's lives for the better?

Categorised in:

In the last three weeks David Cameron the United Kingdom Prime Minister announced his Big Society initiative. There is plenty of information about it online.

However, the opinion seems to be divided regarding the impact of this initiative. There are hundreds of well run volunteer groups, many people acting as individuals (not as part of an organised volunteer group) assist or regularly perform activities that would fit into the mould of Big Society.

Therefore, overall, do you think this will help society at large and improve people's lives?

The devolutionary aspects could improve the public sector, but it may be overshadowed by the cuts

 

For a long time, the way government has worked – top-down, top-heavy, controlling – has frequently had the effect of sapping responsibility, local innovation and civic action. It has turned many motivated public-sector workers into disillusioned, weary puppets of government targets. - David Cameron source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/18/four-authorities-experiment-big-society
 This quote rings true with what I've heard from many public sector workers (not all of course). Part of the Big Society idea is to give more power to people on the ground-floor. Although I'm open to counter-arguments, I generally feel very supportive of that agenda. Relying on central government to solve everything through top-down edicts and bureaucratic micro-management is such a slow, cumbersome process and, from what I know, has a tendency to demoralise public workers by turning them into cogs who must simply obey orders which they can see aren't working, but have no power to influence.

However it seems public sector workers will gain this new influence at the cost of wages, job security, pensions and overal public sector funding. Unfortunately it will probably be that which will have the most impact.

There will be a small increase in the quality of life in the short term, but no significant difference

Generally I feel that the Big Society initiative is simply Conservative Party rhetoric, albeit somewhat watered down by the fact they are now in coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

There are already hundred of small and large volunteer groups out there. People as individuals (not as part of an organised group) also donate their free time to helping others. This is not something new, but what is new is grouping it together to encourage more people to help others.

This is one of the key steps in the Big Society, where I think little will happen. In my view there are three main hurdles to overcome;

  • Apathy / Motivation:
    Many people that become aware of this idea will simply not bother to react. I believe that it's fair to say in more deprived areas people that live there could be of the most help to their communities, since they know exactly what the problems are. However, I feel it is also fair to say on average that the demographic living there are less politically aware and/or more apathetic. Whether you agree with that or not is a debate for another time.
  • The media:
    The media will no doubt continue to report on everything that happens in Government. I would say this includes successes and failures of Big Society schemes in regards to volunteer / community work. However, I would suspect that few media outlets will report both, since most media outlets in my opinion tend to lean towards one political party or ideal. Therefore it may not be in their interest to report both. Note that I am not necessarily referring to major news outlets such as BBC News or ITV, but rather smaller media sources such as local papers that may have vested interests with the local MP. Since this Big Society is aimed at improving local communities, how the effects of the initiative are reported locally could have major impacts on its success.
  • Example:
    This is an opportunity for David Cameron to really show that he and his Cabinet really are 'one of the people' as they said many times in the run up to the election. The lives ministers lead mean that in reality their lifestyle is very far removed from the average working-class person. However, undertaking community and/or voluntary work, even just at 2-4 hours per week or even fortnight would allow him to lead by example. Again, this is part of Big Soceity where Cameron wants people to lead by example for others. This point was first noted by a columnist in The Independent newspaper. One of the reasons many people may give for not volunteering their time is that they are simply too busy. I understand the life of the Prime Minister and his colleagues are busy, but that would be a perfect example to show that if he can do it then so can the ordinary public. However, there is the issue of how it would be managed since the media may portray it as genuine or simply a gimmick / public relations exercise. Whether or not you believe he would be doing it for a genuine reason or not is again, a debate for another time.

People know about volunteering and community groups. People know where to go to find out information and what kind of things they may be interested in. I believe that unless the three hurdles listed above are tackled then the Big Society initiative will have a hard time showing much success. People need to be shown the benefit of this concept and what it will mean on a local scale as as well broader. People often do work voluntarily for a particular reason, whether that be family or friends or because of a goal they want to achieve. Without the obvious benefit other than 'society at large' I cannot see how this will improve things significantly.

The call to volunteer more will have no impact

I just can't see a political rallying cry to volunteer more having any impact on people. People just don't look on political leaders in that way any more. Also, coming from a prime minister, it sounds like "I'm cutting lots of jobs so now you need to do that work for free!" which isn't so inspiring.