Big Society - language and practice

[Tim Lund]

I am uncomfortable about the use of the term 'Big Society' because of
its inevitable party political associations, and in my borough -
Lewisham - it is widely avoided even when we are aware that it might
be thought applicable to what we are doing. So I want to know how
much the effectiveness of local authorities will now depend on them -
and us - being prepared to use such language.

I guess my understanding of what the term means in practice is having
volunteers involved in providing public services. Or maybe 'citizens'
- since, in an earlier email, Hugh suggested this as a better term
than 'voluntary sector' in something I wrote about 'co-production'. I
guess this distinction allows people getting paid for working with the
fully public sector, in whatever legal capacity - not-for-profit
employee, or someone whose greater effectiveness can also reward
shareholders of a normal plc.

I want to see the practice but I cannot see how the politics will
work. Ideally there would be an understanding of how it would for all
those involved;

* good public sector employees getting the rewards they deserve;
* citizens getting better public services in their areas
in some cases getting paid
in all case retaining appropriate democratic control;
and
* government getting the greater efficiency it wants.

But where the need to fight the cuts is seen as more important, it is
a brave person who tries to make anything happen. There is also a
very reasonable concern that any 'co-production' will indeed be 'cheap
work for the council' if councils divert resources away from areas
where the big society - for want of a better word - is working, to
areas where greater social problems mean that it does not. There are
echoes here of the debate over welfare reform; when central government
struggles to eliminate the welfare trap, can local government be
expected not to create local 'big society' traps, and make anyone who
puts their hand up look like an idiot as well?

Against this background, I really feel for senior council officers
required to make central government policy work in their areas when if
it is over burdened with the language of the Big Society.

[Hugh Neal]

Sorry if this sounds a bit pedantic; I think some further consideration as to terminology needs to happen. One can only be termed a citizen if one is living in a republic. We are not. Technically we are subjects.

Off soap box and on with anorak....

Hugh (Arthur Pewty) Neal.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "London Neighbourhoods Online" group.

We're looking forward to seeing you at Riverside House, Southwark Bridge Road, for a 10.00 start on 25th September.

To post to this group, send email to LNO-unconferenc...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
LNO-unconference-Sept...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/LNO-unconference-September-2010

[Tim Lund]

I've put a slightly edited version of this up my local Forum -
http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5297&p=41011. It
probably won't attract too much comment, although it is very much an
implicit comment on the hot local topic of a proposed library closure.

Tim (a technical subject)

On Sep 26, 4:42 pm, Hugh Neal <hugh.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry if this sounds a bit pedantic; I think some further consideration as
> to terminology needs to happen. One can only be termed a citizen if one is
> living in a republic. We are not. Technically we are subjects.
>
> Off soap box and on with anorak....
>
> Hugh (Arthur Pewty) Neal.
>

> > LNO-unconference-Sept...@googlegroups.com<LNO-unconferen ce-September-2010%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>