THE BIG SOCIETY: The Cameron relaunch

So today is the big day, the official David Cameron relaunch of the Big Society.  Yesterday was the wooing of the left with his article in the Guardian.

The Big Society has been a PR disaster up to now.  The Conservative Party has done well in articulating what the Big Society is not, and what they don’t believe in – a big state, public spending, state intervention.  In other words the usual anti public sector spending and size of the state.  But what do they actually believe in?

As discussed in a previous article –  https://extranea.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/is-david-camerons-big-society-in-trouble/ the ideas behind the big society are not new, and have been articulated before at times of austerity and public sector cuts, yet David Cameron insists this is not a cover for the cuts.  But to convince the public and ultimately the electorate,  they need to put flesh on the bones of what the big society means and to actually give weight to the policy.

We have seen too often recently how policies advocated by the coalition have been ill thought out, with little intellectual weight, just look at the Forests, NHS reform, the Gove education debacle, and the woeful Merlin Project from George Osborne. (see previous article https://extranea.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/project-merlin-osborne-takes-on-the-banks-or-damp-squib/

The Big Society appears to look like another rhetoric over substance policy initiative.

The truth about the cuts is that the way the reduction in funding has been carried out cannot be considered as fair.   Criticism has been made of the Labour government putting money into poor communities via local councils and public spending.  As a result of this action some areas of the country are inevitably more dependent on public funding. This came about due to the lack of private capital investment in certain poorer areas of the country and not necessarily due to an ideological thirst to increase the state.

It was “good” to take public sector jobs to those areas because those areas needed the investment, needed jobs and it would have made economic sense to employ people in those areas as this would have been cheaper in terms of labour and capital costs.

The cuts being introduced are disproportionately weighted in the highest spending areas, in other words the poorest areas.  Therefore, the cuts will disproportionately affect poorer areas of the country.

It is not the simple argument given by the Conservative Party that public sector investment or spending is bad and private is good.  The situation is a lot more complicated, and the cuts will effect the poorest sectors of society and the most vulnerable more.

At this time, the rhetoric of the Big Society is to stigmatise those on “benefits”, attack DLA, take away services like libraries, CAB funding etc which communities rely on. The cuts will all happen, within a short 2 year period when the front loading of the cuts hit the councils.

There is no possible way the private sector, community groups or charities can take up this slack in this amount of time.  If it was over a 10-20year period,  maybe it could work, but this is not the case.

There has also been ridicule by the right wing press over how much councils rely on charities to provide services, and that many charities rely too much on public funding.  Is this a bad thing?

When talking about efficiencies, surely it is efficient to employ local grassroots organisations in bedded in communities who utilise voluntary labour to provide services.  Surely this has to be good value for money?

So councils are being criticised for being inefficient on one hand, and at the same time criticised for funding the most efficient services and the grassroots voluntary sector to boot.  The rhetoric is contradictory before even getting to the reality of the policy.

An extra £200m has been announced for the Big Society bank, yet the government cannot say exactly how it will work.  The cuts will take away between £3 billion and £5 billion from charitable organisations.  How can £200m make any dent in such a reduction in funding? ( see Pestons Picks http://bbc.in/eVxv5Z )

Many of us, me included agree in much of the rhetoric of the Big Society.  Who wouldn’t.  But ideology of private Vs public sector is a red herring.  It is not any cuts that people object to but the way they are implemented and which communities have to pay the price.

There is also research which contradicts the very basis of the the rhetoric in that the assumption is that you get more voluntary workers with a smaller state, but evidence within Europe suggests the opposite.

There are several aspects of coalition rhetoric that the ordinary public can see to be pithy and disingenuous. “We are all in this together” , is the obvious one.  How can we be in this together when we know that those taking the big decisions come from a very privileged narrow sector of society, the banks have been let off the hook and large corporations do everything they can to avoid tax.

Like back to basics (John Major), and the third way (Tony Blair), the rhetoric of the Big Society is likely to be thrown back in David Cameron’s face in the coming years but will it also be an electoral liability?

 

If you like this yo may like

Benefit Scrounging Scum – http://benefitscroungingscum.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-is-big-society.html

Left-foot Forward- http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/02/david-cameron-big-society-broken-society/comment-page-1/#comment-91962

PROJECT MERLIN: Osborne takes on the banks or a damp squib?

So here it is, Project Merlin, that the coalition, David Cameron and George Osborne have been negotiating, and pinning their hopes on for so long.

So what did we get??

Lending

First of all, the government has been trying to get the banks to lend more. One of the biggest problems with the recession we are in, is not that bad businesses have failed, but that good businesses have not been able to access credit on good terms to either expand or to stand still.

Small businesses have been going to the wall due to the lack of availability of credit. Larger businesses have done better in the climate, but still on unfavourable terms.

They have announced that lending will be up from £179bn to £190bn. Not a massive rise but it amounts to an extra 15% allocated for small businesses.  This is a voluntary agreement to be policed by the Bank of England – no sanctions are to be applied.

Bonuses

The Banks will reduce the amount of bonuses this year (£950m) as a result of these negotiations and a target indicator of the amount of lending will be used to calculate bonuses in the future. – This should at least give some hope without sanctions that banks meet these targets.

Pay is to be made more transparent, but not as transparent as in the USA, with the publishing of board member salaries and the 8 highest earners below board level from 2012.  The 4 “Merlin” banks will do this sooner.

The remuneration committees of big British banks will commit that they will  sign off the pay of the ten highest paid individuals in each business division. This is designed to make it easier for shareholders to hold the banks to account for what they pay.

More risk capital to be given to areas of the UK that are less advantaged. The amount though is disputed by the banks, the government say it is an extra £1bn.

£200m for the Big Society equity banks.

A Good Deal or a Damp Squib?

Well credit where credit is due (no pun intended), there is some transparency here that has been required for some time and it will be good for the economy if more lending is available for small businesses.

However, the amount of extra capital for hard hit areas of the UK is disputed by the banks.  In addition the amount available to small businesses will still be at commercial rates which is one of the main complaints, therefore it may be available but unaffordable .

In addition, as economies come out of recession, more credit is normally available, so when the figures come out to test how well these measures are working it will be difficult to say what has affected the change, normal economic activity or the measures agreed.

The measures on bank bonuses has been late in coming and will not settle the concerns of the public.  The reduction of bonuses to a little under £950m people will regard as still too high.

The big disappointment for the government politically must be the £200m for the Big Society project. It sounds a lot, but like the mental health strategy of £400million injection, it is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount that is being cut by councils around the country.  It will not make up the shortfall let alone add to diversification of service provision.

Conclusion

This has been a long time coming but will ultimately be seen as a damp squib.  If this is all they were arguing about, it is obvious that the banks still have their heads in the sand and still have the upper hand when it comes to political power.

The structural problems have not been dealt with.  The transparency is not far enough and there is no legislative clout behind these agreements.

Extra credit agreements without the terms by which they offer the credit is useless in a commercial environment where it is a soft market for banks to make large profits from benign conditions and little competition.

Until the banking system is fully reformed, which under Osborne is doubtful, the systemic problems remain. (see previous post https://extranea.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/bankers-do-it-again-and-again-and-again-and/

As for the Big Society, I think the PR problems will continue as more communities around the country experience how the cuts will affect them.

I would give Osborne 3/10 for effort – we won’t find out much about the performance for another 18 months to 2 years.

TORY PARTY FUNDING: Now we know why George Osborne is so soft on the Bankers

In the past few weeks we have seen George Osborne try to water down reforms to the banking industry in Europe.  See George Monbiot’s article available at                                                                                  http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2011/01/24/bonus-balls/

and documentation to back this article up on George Monbiot’s blog at http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2011/01/24/how-the-treasury-deceived-us/

We also know that the government is weakening tax laws so that large and medium sized businesses and corporations can pay less tax through having offices abroad in other countries and in tax havens.  See the following article at   http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2011/02/07/a-corporate-coup-detat/

This is all very strange considering the rhetoric before the election and the criticising of Labour policy for being too soft on the banks.  David Cameron still has a specific pledge on the Conservative Party website stating there would be no banking cash bonus over £2,000. See the following link http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2009/02/No_bank_bonuses_over_2000.aspx

So where did it all go wrong?

Well the truth appears that it never went wrong, it has gone absolutely right for the Conservative Party. They have been able to get into power through reassuring voters on many issues like banking, family allowance, law and order, EMA, and so on, and as soon as the election was over, revealed the real manifesto.

The deceit is as transparent as can be, and now we can see why the bankers are still such good friends of the nation’s government.  It has been confirmed that more than half of their party funding is from the city.  This has been steadily increasing since David Cameron and his Bullingdon boys have led the Conservative Party.

The Conservative Party constantly points out the funding of the Labour Party from the Trade Unions, always seen as the disruptive political force in society by the right wing of politics.  Yet the reality is that this country, and the world economy, has been brought to it’s knees not as a result of trade union greed and corruption, but due to the irresponsibility and corrupt nature of the Banking system.

Indeed, the Labour Party courted the city and big business in the 1990’s and constantly pandered to the Banks, praising them and swallowing the deregulation neo-liberal policies, allowing the Banks the freedom to do as they wished.

We have gone from a Tory lite government in New Labour to an ultra right wing Conservative Party who are wedded to big business regardless of the effects on society or the economy in the long term.

This not only shows how the Conservative Party have been corrupted by donations from the city, but how our entire political system has been corrupted.  Rotten to the core of our Parliamentary Democracy.

We need a complete overhaul of the way political parties are funded, as well as many other constitutional  changes to clean up our politics.

Democracy is pointless if the power is only with those with money.

The very idea that people give large amounts of money to political parties, and don’t expect them to take their point of view within the political debate is ridiculous. Money buys influence, if it didn’t, they would not contribute in such large amounts.  Just exactly what have David Cameron and George Osborne told the city they will get for their money?

We are only within the first year of the new coalition government, and the amount of bank and city friendly policies has been dramatic.  Yet those at the lower end of the economic scale are being punished for the problems of society they did not create.

Sad but true, our politics is indeed broken as David Cameron suggested before the election, only he is the one doing the most to break it.

DAVID CAMERON’S MORALISING LEAVES HIM MORALLY BANKRUPT

Not only do we have possibly the most dishonest UK government since 1945 (see previous post https://extranea.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/coalition-government-is-this-the-most-dishonest-uk-government-since-1945/ )  to compound the coalition’s lies they now seek to make policy and redistribution of wealth on the basis of morality.  Who’s morality?? Well the dishonest coalition’s of course.

Today we are going to see Iain Duncan Smith begin the ramping up of the moral crusade for the married couple.  Of course this is all to do with pure politics to prop up the traditional support within the aged middle classes in Conservative seats – cynical to the last.

The proposal is to recognise the married couple in the tax allowances.

Statistics show that those that are married are more likely to stay together.  However, there are many flaws in these statistics as many couples who co-habit may do so as a trial before getting married and then decide not to marry and split.  This counts as a black mark against co-habiting couples apparently.

Not only are the statistics flawed, but they also show that those that are married tend to be wealthier than those that are not.

Iain Duncan Smith wants to recognise the married couple in society,  in some kind of approval from the state.  He also wants to encourage marriage and to encourage marriages to stay together.

Now there are only 3 reasons that tax should be employed in society.

1. Raise revenue
2. Change behaviour/ give incentives
3. Redistribute wealth on the basis of need

What the moralising policy of the coalition seeks to do is none of the above.  Instead to re-distribute wealth from those that have less to those that have more.

He believes that a “tax break”,  for being married will a) encourage people to get married who would otherwise not have done so,  and b) encourage people to stay married when things go wrong.

The very idea that anyone thinks that more people will get married or stay together as a result of a few hundred pounds a year is ridiculous.  I would also suggest that any marriage undertaken in order to get a tax benefit is made on rocky ground to start with!

We should be formulising policy on pragmatism and not ideology. The current tax and benefit arrangements actually penalise married couples, and this is reprehensible and should be changed. However, at the same time we should not penalise those that are not married.

A recent article by Peter Oborne in the telegraph ( see here http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100074678/david-cameron-has-caved-in-to-those-waging-war-against-the-family/ )  and especially some of the comments made about the article indicate the ignorance of many in our society.

I understand that some feel that marriage is good for our society and people believe in it either from a cultural or religious point of view.  That does not mean that policy should be made to discriminate  against those that do not believe in the same moral code. Actively seeking to redistribute wealth from all tax payers including those on small incomes to those who are married who are more likely to earn more in the first place.

Much of the opinion coming from this moral direction come from the notion that the last 50 years can be reversed. That there was a golden age of the 1950’s that meant couples lived in blissful middle class communities as married couples with 2.4 children.  The rose coloured spectacles of the right wing conservatives ignores the reality.

There was no golden age. Reasons for less marriage break have more to do with economic dependency and difficulties in obtaining divorce than any great moral period in history.

The only way to reverse the trend of marriages would be to make one partner dependent on the other, meaning the weaker member would not be able to leave the relationship. This is surely not a world we wish to go back to.

We need to look forward and not back.  The problems with relationship breakdown are complicated and societal in nature.

It is all the more puzzling that the coalition is peddling such moralistic policies when we were told when they were in opposition that they no longer wanted the “nanny state”, the “micro management” of society by government.  Yet this appears to be exactly that!

Government making policy on moral grounds to micro manage peoples behaviour due to the dissaproval of how people behave in their own homes.

Do people want to be told how to live their lives or if they should get married or not? I think not.

Another U-turn on policy or lie depending on how you look at it, from one nanny state to another. This policy makes no sense and will cost money the government does not have.

My advice to the government is take your head out of the sand.

IS DAVID CAMERON’S BIG SOCIETY IN TROUBLE?

No one had heard of “The Big Society”, before the 2010 election except for a few political hacks and those closest to David Cameron. Following his original speech on 10th November 2009, the Big Society came to prominence during the election campaign and was dismissed by many as a pithy political slogan to justify the cuts that were to come.  Some within the Conservative Party even thought it was a distraction in the election. (Cameron, 2009)

The truth is there is nothing new in the Big Society.  We have heard it all before. Douglas Hurd was talking about something very similar in the “Active Citizen” in the 1990’s. He had been talking about it apparently since 1983.  The idea led to an essay and a few philosophical discussions but went no where.

It’s not surprising no one remembers it, after all he was promoting the idea in another era of “austerity”, massive cuts, rolling back the state etc etc in the 1980’s and then . . . . massive cuts and rolling back of the state in the 1990’s!

We were told in the election campaign that the “cuts” would be to public servants and bureaucrats who we were told didn’t do anything. Cutting red tape as there is so much slack in the system.

The cuts have hardly started and all we hear about is the most vulnerable being effected and the poor taking the brunt of the flak along with the demonisation of the poor on “benefits” and those with disabilities.  Two reprehensible articles have been written in the Daily Mail recently with massive inaccuracies with the obvious intent to rile the middle-classes against those “benefit scroungers”, doing the Tories bidding for them. Quite pathetic. (Chapman, 2011)

Now we hear that The Liverpool City Council have announced they are pulling out of the Big Society as they are getting no co-operation from the government and are experiencing how the cuts are biting, in effect derailing any Big Society ideas.

Yesterday we heard that the Big Society “Tsar” Lord Wei has decided to reduce his hours, but has assured us that he still believes in the project. (BBC website, 2011)

If we peruse the twitter chatter or the news stories each day we can get overwhelmed by the pain people are feeling already.  Those on disability facing cuts in their allowances that allow them to live a humane life and to have opportunity; the mentally ill being made ill through the new re-assessment procedures; the closing of many Citizen Advice Bureaux  drop in centres; charities making redundancies to cover funding losses; selling off our forests to the highest bidder; the closure of sure start and so on and so on.

These are early days, we haven’t seen the majority of the cuts yet but it is clear where the axe is falling, on the poorest communities and those the government thinks won’t fight back, or be able to fight back. Patronising to the last.

In two years time it is clear that the voluntary sector and charities will be providing less services than they are today as the squeeze hits them.  There is a misconception about how charities operate. They do not rely on unpaid volunteers alone. To run a charity they have to employ people in the professions and have to compete for funding. So when funds reduce from a strapped for cash public and less government funding, jobs are lost and services they provide cannot improve, expand or indeed may contract.  This is the opposite of the “Big Society we are being told about.

It is also rather annoying that the USA keeps being brought up as an ideal model to follow for philanthropy. The reason that there is a culture of philanthropy in the US is that there is little state intervention and they do not believe in a social democracy. Yet with the philanthropy comes massive divisions in society; 42 million without health care; homelessness and the 3rd biggest gap between the rich and poor in the world according to the UN. Is that the society we want to create?

The UK is not perfect by any means but we are a different culture and have different ideas on what constitutes a civilised society hence the anger with Bankers and MP’s expenses.

The reality does not meet the rhetoric of David Cameron and the Big Society.  It is not a new idea, but the rehash of an old one, that had vanished without trace on several previous occasions and no doubt will again.

We all have short memories. In 1997, the reason Labour obtained a landslide victory was because of the state of our public services. Do we want to go back to those days?

Is David Cameron’s Big Society in trouble? I don’t think it ever got off the ground.

BBC website, (2011),Big Society Tsar reduces hours, [online], BBC website, available at                                                                                   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12343830

(Cameron, 2009, The Big Society, [online], Conservative Party website, available  at  http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/11/David_Cameron_
The_Big_Society.aspx)

Chapman, J. (2011), The great disability free for all:Half of claimants are not asked to prove eligibility, [online], Daily Mail website, available at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353111/Disability-benefits-Half-claimants-asked-prove-eligibility.html