Big Society: More than just a soundbite?

This piece (Big Society: More than just a soundbite?), published on the BBC Politics website on 11 February 2011, is one of the best things on Big Society I've read to date.

The irony comes from the contrast between the article and the comments that follow it (not that I need to tell you how to detect irony, of course).

If you're going to stick your head above the parapet you shouldn't be surprised to find that there are plenty of willing and able marksmen ready to draw a bead on it.

Thanks to @David_Harney for tweeting this gem, on the day that Big Society Capital (AKA the Big Society Bank) opens for business.

Unkindest cuts of all for the Big Society

Jeremy Prescott's First Person column appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Unkindest cuts of all for the Big Society

Jeremy Prescott thinks councils cutting funding for charities is self-defeating

A year ago I wrote in this column that Big Society was in danger of failing through the funding cuts that the voluntary sector were facing. 

A recently leaked national report conducted by the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (Acevo) validates my fears. It states that the charitable sector is facing local authority and national government funding cuts of between £1 billion and £5.5 billion in this current financial year.

At a local level we have recently had news of Voluntary Action Melton facing closure at the end of March with many other charities such as Cruse Bereavement Service also on a survival knife edge.

Even closer to home the Rural Community Council (RCC), the charity which I lead, is facing funding cuts of 34 per cent from Leicestershire County Council, 62 per cent from Rutland County Council and 100 per cent cuts from Harborough and Melton District Councils. We are only managing to maintain our services by delving into our reserves which can only be sustained for a short time.

A recent questionnaire on the Big Society conducted by the RCC showed an alarmingly degree of negativity towards this government initiative. Many felt that it was a ploy of seeking volunteers to provide services, normally paid for by council taxes, on the cheap.

To give credit to Leicestershire County Council, they have allocated over £340,000 into a Big Society Grant Scheme to help small community groups turns their ideas into reality. I have always advocated that such funding is just part of an important jigsaw but what is equally important is that charities who provide the essential support to those small groups are funded to do just that.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a meal; teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" (Chinese Proverb).

For this reason I believe the balance of funding being provided to this grant scheme is wrong and this view is supported by 75 per cent of those surveyed in the Big Society questionnaire, advocating that charities should receive more funding from this Big Society pot.

These funding cuts are making it extremely difficult for us to provide support to those who need it.

It is accepted that local authorities are having to making huge savings themselves but I strongly feel that a way of helping them make such savings is actually to increase the amount of funding they provide to charities.

With the low running costs of charities (salaries and pensions) compared with the public sector, and the fact that we rely on the enormous goodwill of an army of volunteers who selflessly give up their time, this is certainly not the time to be cutting the voluntary sector.

Jeremy Prescott is Chief Executive of the RCC, a local charity supporting rural communities.

Big Society: The Good, The Bad & The Unequal

At the Midland Hotel, Bradford, today for Big Society: The Good,The Bad & The Unequal. This national conference is hosted by JUSTWest Yorkshire and is jointly sponsored by them, Runnymede Trust, Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

We're welcomed by Ratna Lachman, Chief Exec of JUST West Yorkshire and Maureen Grant from Joseph Rowntree charitable Trust, who set the tone for the rest of the day. The conference focuses on four main areas:

• What does "fairness" mean in the context of Big Society?
• Can Big Society deliver racial justice?
• Does Big Society privilege the South over the North?
• Is Big Society a cover for big cuts?

This event also marks the publication of a new book (with the same title as the conference), to help inform discourse regarding Big Society, to interrogate Big Society agenda, particularly as it affects VCS organisations, practitioners and service users. The book provides systematic, intelligent critique, provides an alternate narrative rather than one of grudging acquiescence and makes no bones about the necessity of speaking truth to power.

There are three plenary presentations (all of which you can access, faithful reader, by clicking on the title below):

• Anna Coote (New Economics Foundation): Fairness and Equality in the Big Society
• Ed Cox (Institute of Public Policy Research): Two Geographies Divided by One Big Society
• Rob Berkeley (Runnymede Trust): The Colour of Big Society

After lunch, we also see a young people's video presentation on Big Society.

This is a very different affair from the conference I attended in London a month ago (see blog, Monday 30 January). That one was led by organisations who've obtained contracts and funding to deliver Big Society initiatives and projects, with speakers addressing many in the audience from organisations threatened by the Coalition's austerity regime - as well as by the plain and simple fact that those making decisions about development of the Voluntary and Community Sector just don't "get it". There was an undercurrent of anger and resentment at that event. It would be true to say that here, there's no undercurrent. Quite the opposite: it's more of a rallying cry. From a straw poll, I reckon I'm the only one who attended both conferences - and take it from me, there's quite a difference between the two!

Big Society & Equality Conference

To London today, for the Big Society and Equality Conference, hosted by the Women's Resource Centre (WRC) at the Human Rights Action Centre, Amnesty International UK, New Inn Yard.

The first person I see when I enter the conference room is Ian Robson, Director of the Leicester LGBT Centre and a fellow Core Partner on REDP. We silently mouth "What are you doing here?" to each other as I skirt my way through the tables to find the nearest free seat. I'm here representing both Leicester Council of Faiths and REDP. Ian's here for the LGBT Centre (and has to leave before the end of the morning sessions).

Around 40 organisations (mostly from the Voluntary and Community Sector) are represented here today, including:

• Age UK
• Ashiana Network
• Broadway Homelessness & Support
• Black & Ethnic Minority Working Group
• Community Action South East (CASE) Kent
• Churches Together in Britain and Ireland
• Community Network
• Disability Rights UK
• End Violence Against Women
• Eurinteg
• GFS Platform
• Hackney Women's Forum
• Harrow Women's Forum
• Her Centre
• Hillcroft College
• Irish Traveller Movement in Britain
• Leicester LGBT Centre
• LGBT Consortium 
• LVSC
• National Coalition Building Institute (NCBI)
• National Federation of Women’s Institutes (NFWI) 
• North East Women's Network
• Race on the Agenda (ROTA)
• Refugee Council
• REAP (Refugees in Effective & Active Partnership)
• Riverside Community Health Project
• Roma Support Group
• Shelter
• St Mungos (HMP Pentonville)
• Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust
• UN Women UK
• The Vassall Centre
• Women in Prison
• Women Wellbeing Association
• Women and Work

Introduction & welcome Vivienne Hayes, Chief Executive, Women's Resource Centre.

Overview of Big Society Sheila Battersby, Policy Manager, Local Intelligence Team, Office for Civil Society.

• The Big Society fits in with coalition agreements around decentralisation and localism and is about changing the role of central government.
• Nick Hurd, the Minister for Civil Society is leading on this programme of work.
• There are three pillars to the Big Society: community empowerment, social action and opening public services.
• This event is an opportunity for equalities organisations to feedback to Ministers on practical solutions to issues such as innovation, how to improve local democracy and so on.
• One of the aims of this research is to provide recommendations for an Office for Civil Society (OCS) report. These recommendations will be shared with the wider Cabinet Office.

Equalities and the Big Society Natalie Ntim, Policy Officer, Women's Resource Centre.

• Greater equalities awareness is needed amongst public bodies
• A survey by WRC acknowledged the lack of capacity within organisations to engage with the programmes within the three pillars.
• Case study of Equality Cumbria – a social enterprise made up of equalities networks that has supported 13 public bodies over the past three years in a variety of ways. They work in partnership but apply for contracts separately to cover their individual core costs.

Community First Grants Programme Ian Beason, Programmes Manager, Community Development Foundation.

The Community First Grants programme is an £80 million government-funded Big Society initiative. It aims to get people to give time, money, goods, services and facilities to improve the quality of life of local communities. The initiative replaces the last government’s Grassroots Grants programme which aimed to provide small grants for local community groups. However, rather than just awarding small grants to community projects, it requires government funding to be matched with community contributions. The programme aims to encourage community self-reliance; increase participation of all parts of the community; strengthen communities by identifying local priorities; and provide a source of grants in the future.

• The aim of the programme is to make communities better to live in.
• The Community First Grant is a neighbourhood level matched fund.
• Decisions of who receives funding are made by Community First Panels. Panels are self selecting and determine their local priorities. After a year, they’ll firm these up by creating a panel plan.
• Panels will nominate a Panel Partner- they will have to say that the panel is actually a representative group of the local population.
• Projects are match funded 1:1 – although the organisation does not have to match the amount purely in money terms, it could also be volunteer time for example.
• Over 250 panels have submitted applications already.
• The programme has links with other programmes and partners e.g. Community Organisers, Business Connectors, Community Foundation Network, Asda stores, youth orgs, local authorities etc.
• Q&A session:
• Q: Accountability of Panels? How will CDF manage any possible conflict of interest?
• A: Ian stressed the importance of website connection to panels, who will have to upload information about decisions made regarding funding. He said there is no specific equalities angle in this initiative and was unsure whether minutes displayed publicly will be obligatory.
• Q: How will CDF counteract homogenous panels and encourage representation of equalities?
• A: All local authorities have received a letter from CDF saying they should be representative. Local authorities generally haven’t sat on the panels in order to create distance between themselves and the decisions made. They don’t want to appear like they’re running the show to their own priorities. However, no equalities data is being collected on the membership of the panels.
• Any organisation can become a panel representative and organisations don’t have to be based in the ward or even be a constituted group.
• RECOMMENDATION: disaggregate panel membership by equalities data
• Q: What is the process for financial accountability?
• CDF are in charge of financial accountability. They then have to account to OCS.
• Delegate Comments:
• Harder and harder to get the most disadvantaged people to engage because it’s getting harder and harder to survive
• Website accountability – disadvantaged people less likely to use the internet
• Mistake to link equality and local level projects. Just because it’s local doesn’t mean it will be meeting equalities obligations. For example, LSPs were local and were also male dominated. Will be too late in a few years to see that all the panels are run by white men.

Local Integrated Services Victoria Westhorp, Policy Manager, Local Intelligence Team, Office for Civil Society; Martha Earley, Public Health Manager for Inequalities & Team Leader for Community Development, Royal Borough of Kingston.

Local Integrated Services is a new approach to delivering local services which brings together budgets and local assets (such as buildings) and puts communities in control of co-producing and commissioning the services that they need. It looks at ways to effectively use existing resources and explores the benefits of pooling budgets. The government supports the testing of community commissioning to see if it can produce better outcomes and create financial savings.

• Community commissioning is statutory commissioning devolved down to community level. It’s more about communities being involved in decision making about services rather than directly handing money to communities.  
• Past interventions (e.g. health action zones) focused on particular streets/areas of deprivation. The Marmot Review said that a universal approach benefits the poorest people more than specific interventions. So      Kingston council wrote to the Cabinet Office to propose a new approach- working with everyone in the ward. Within this approach, the council identified the need to:
• Develop community voice.
• Pool money and resources for a single pot of money.
• Increase partnership work between individuals and agencies.
• The council ask the community what to focus on, without a pre-existing agenda. They used some previous research to find out what community members had already identified. There are monthly project meetings for all partners to get around the table. They have aimed to circumnavigating the segregation model- where someone is       targeted just because they live on a particular estate - which stigmatizes people and discourages them from getting involved.

Community Organisers Programme Lawrence Walker, Programmes Officer, Locality

The Community Organisers Programme is a £15 million government-funded Big Society initiative. The programme aims to recruit and train 5,000 Community Organisers to help local communities come together to tackle social issues and develop community projects in deprived areas in England. The programme started in February 20112 and will run for the lifetime of this Parliament (until May 2015). Through the programme, government wants to strengthen community spirit; encourage participation of the local community; increase the effectiveness of existing community groups; create new community groups and social enterprises; and support communities to tackle local issues important to them.

• Q&A/Comments:
• What are the real costs of Community Organisers? Hosts will not be getting full cost recovery. Community development officers get paid more than the wages being paid to community organisers and they are very similar jobs.
• Q: Can anyone become an organiser and how do you recruit them?
• A: Yes anyone can become an organiser, follow the website and find a local host organisation to apply to.
• Q: How are the expenses of community organisers paid?
• A: Learning expenses are covered; the host provides liability insurance for the volunteers.
• Q: What connections do you have with previous community organiser projects?
• A: It refers back to previous community organiser projects, but the larger scale of the current movement means it’s an innovative new programme.
• Group Discussion:
• How could the Community Organisers programme benefit the groups that you work with?
• It is another way in which our organisations can have some form of influence
• One organisation said that they are being selective about which parts of the Big Society they engage with due to capacity and lack of finance. This organisation will not engage with community organisers as they are concerned about the legacy component- the political landscape is likely to change in 3 years’ time.
• What is wrong with existing voluntary sector work? Fantastic organisations already do this work e.g. in Barnet.
• Unsure as to what value the programme will bring to the sector, it seems the government are reinventing the wheel. We already know what people need, why we don’t use the money to fund what they need.
• Community organisers should be coming to the voluntary sector first rather than us having to engage with them. They should be aware of and build upon our work. --- Locality see the community organisers programme as complementing the work of the voluntary and community sector.
• Organisations are currently losing funding, expertise, knowledge and relationships. The organisations that would act as hosts are closing on a weekly basis. If the macro-level is taken away what use is developing the micro-level,
• Recommendations:
• Need to encourage those who don’t feel empowered to engage with the programme; need to support these groups to create a plan of the change they want to see.
• The programme needs to manage financial expectations. If there is no money after the initial community organisation programme, it will be difficult to achieve any long-term positive outcomes.
• Have organisers been CRB checked and how will you ensure they are protected if they are engaging with people in personal spaces, such as their homes?

By this stage in the proceedings there’s a negative atmosphere; a palpable air of anger, anxiety, depression, disappointment, disbelief, fear – I could go on. Suffice to say, a black cloud has been forming over the room, although it doesn’t seem to be overshadowing those on the platform or podium. The fellow sitting next to me has been responding to each new PowerPoint slide with a muttered, “Oh, for God’s sake!” After a while, I ask him if he’s aware he’s doing that, or if he thinks he’s just thinking it. Those taking advantage of the opportunities to ask questions and make comments become fewer and fewer. More people are just staring at their shoes or at the table tops; some have their heads in their hands.

I feel moved to comment at the end of this session (on the Community Organisers Programme). Bearing in mind the primacy of courtesy, and taking care to avoid giving the impression that this is any kind of ad hominem attack, I feel I have to take a few minutes to articulate what I believe most people in the room are thinking.

Addressing a group of patients who are struggling with a terminal illness and telling them that on top of that, they’re now expected to take on fostering duties.

Many of the people here today – and more people whom we know back in our communities and organisations – have worked over years (over decades in many cases) to develop a level of compassion, confidence, cooperation, courage, diplomacy, expertise, judgement, knowledge, rapport, sensitivity, sympathy, trust. Why should we be glad, grateful or thankful that the Coalition sees fit to jettison so many of these people and the organisations for which they work and that it offers something (in the form of the Community Organisers programme) that is a poor shadow of what we’ve spent all this time and effort developing? The creation of a stratum of Community Organisers as has been described today would be welcome if the sector as a whole is facing a collective death sentence.

I end by saying to the speaker that I don’t envy his position. I have no desire to “shoot the messenger” but I have to say that I wouldn’t be doing his job for all the tea in China.

As I'm leaving the venue at the end of the conference, one of the delegates wishes me farewell and hails me as the "William Wallace of the equalities world". I know that she's latching on to my Scottishness and my outspokenness but I can't help but be flattered by that - until I remember that William Wallace gets disembowelled at the end of Braveheart!

This event has vexed me for some time now. That’s partly why it took me ages to write this blog post. The reason why I found it so disturbing only became clear after I attended another national conference on Big Society a month later, in Bradford. This event today was a showcase for those organisations which have won contracts to deliver Big Society initiatives; the Bradford conference was quite the opposite in tone.

The word "equality" is used often at this conference and in the material that accompanies it. But actions speak louder than words. It seems to me (and, from a straw poll of other attendees) that equality is conspicuous by its absence from the initiatives and programmes described here. It's well known that the Coalition has shifted government support from equality to "fairness". the latter could be said to be subjective. It's not enshrined in or protected by legislation, nor is it measurable - which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to see or state whether or not it's changing for better or worse. It could be said that from this side of the fence, there is no equalities agenda in Big Society (whatever that is, since by the end of today, we're none the wiser except to say that what we do see of it, we don't much like).

A word on the idea of "replicating innovative projects", a phrase that is used often today. Some of us support the notion that this is akin to being a butterfly collector: spotting something attractive and different in the wild, netting it, gassing it and pinning its dead body to a board for display behind glass.

The Big Society emerges at last - as a musical

This article is published in today's Independent:

The Big Society emerges at last - as a musical 

Phill Jupitus to star in theatrical send up of the Prime Minster's grand concept

You've heard the soundbite, you've listened to the speech – now enjoy the musical parody. For anyone still grappling with David Cameron's notion of the Big Society, help is at hand. The Prime Minister's idea has been given the Good Old Days treatment and is due to be performed in Edwardian music hall-style.

The all-singing, all-dancing Big Society! premieres at the newly restored Leeds City Varieties later this month starring the Never Mind the Buzzcocks comedian Phill Jupitus.

The show has been written and composed by Boff Whalley, the guitarist with Chumbawamba, the band whose former lead singer, Danbert Nobacon, famously decanted an ice bucket over John Prescott at the 1998 Brit Awards in protest at Labour's refusal to back the Liverpool dock workers.

Despite being set in 1910, the Red Ladder theatre company's production seeks to draw parallels with the present day. The story centres on the exploits of a variety show cast in a country presided over by an ageing monarch, run by an elitist government of public schoolboys and bedevilled by a corrupt media establishment.It also marks a return to more radical roots for Jupitus, who began his performing life as a punk poet and was part of Red Wedge, the anti-Thatcher music and comedy collective that included the socialist pin-ups Paul Weller and Billy Bragg.

In an interview with The Independent, Jupitus admitted that while he did not look back on the political scene of the 1980s with any great affection, he was perhaps even more deeply demoralised by today's system.

"The way politics is now there is no passion in it. For everything that was wrong with Thatcher and her cabinet, they were clearly defined, identifiable characters. I challenge any of your readers to name six people in the Cabinet today," he said.Jupitus, who as well as being a panel show regular on QI and The News Quiz has appeared in the musicals Spamalot and Hairspray, admitted that he too struggled to define what the Big Society actually was. "I don't even understand what he [Mr Cameron] means by it. It's something that sounded good to a focus group," he said.He urged working people to remember the struggles of the past. "This notion that trade unions are wrong is endemic in society at the moment, that they are somehow bad people. But we wouldn't have any employment rights if it wasn't for trade union activists at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century.

"People wouldn't have rights, women wouldn't have rights. There wouldn't be a lunch break, there wouldn't be tea breaks. People wouldn't have holidays."

David Cameron's Big Idea

Steve Richards (Chief Political Commentator with The Independent, Presenter of BBC's Week in Westminster and host of Rock 'N Roll Politics) explores the Prime Minister's quest to reshape the state and society in this new three-part series on BBC Radio 4. Beginning in May 2010, Richards follows the policies on health, education and localism through the reality of coalition and the austerity regime, and asks whether the original vision is now in retreat.

David Cameron's Big Idea: Episode 1 

When David Cameron became the Conservative leader in 2005, he memorably declared "There is such a thing as society; it's just not the same as the state."

Steve Richards presents a three-part series telling the story behind that famous phrase, tracing David Cameron's vision of a reformed state and a "Big Society" from the early days of opposition to the reality of government.

The first programme explores the period from the beginning of Cameron's leadership in 2005 to the decision to place the Big Society at the heart of the 2010 general election campaign.

Through interviews with Cameron's friends and advisers, such as Danny Kruger, Ian Birrell and David Willetts, and with critics such as Polly Toynbee and Maurice Glasman, the programme shows how the idea was formed and how it was tested, even in the early days.

We go back to the discussions among excited young politicos at Policy Exchange and the dinner tables of Notting Hill. We recall key moments such as the presentation of the Big Society idea in 2009 and the decision to place that theme at the heart of the Conservative general election campaign the following year, a plan which was later heavily criticised.

We show how the idea was difficult to pin down and explore the different versions of the "Big Society" which emerged.

And we examine the impact of the financial crash, revealing the tensions which surfaced between David Cameron and George Osborne.

Available on the BBC iPlayer till midnight, Saturday 14 January 2012.


Follow Steve Richards on Twitter: @steverichards14

"Big Society" project lacks clarity and leadership, say MPs

This article is published in today's Guardian Society:

"Big Society" project lacks clarity and leadership, say MPs 

• Civil service, charities and public confused by policy 

• Single minister must take control to avoid failure 

By Rajeev Syal 

David Cameron’s "big society" project is confusing the civil service, charities and the public because it lacks a clear plan and a leader, according to a parliamentary committee.

In a report released on Wednesday, the public administration select committee calls on the government to introduce a single minister to take control of the policy or risk seeing it flop for a fifth time.

The report follows an earlier inquiry by the same committee, which examines the role of the civil service. It found there had been a failure to apply coherent changes in Whitehall to implement the project.

Bernard Jenkin MP, the Conservative chairman of the committee, says there must be an overhaul of the way the government is implementing the policy to end widespread confusion. "Some charities and community groups have shown they can provide some public services at better value for money than those delivered by the state," he says. "The problem is they are likely to experience significant barriers to progress unless the culture and skills in the departments commissioning such services change."

The big society was a central theme of last year's general election campaign. It is intended to devolve power and to foster a greater sense of responsibility by loosening the role of the state.

In May Cameron relaunched the policy for the fourth time.

He said: "The big society is not some fluffy add-on to more gritty and important subjects. This is about as gritty and important as it gets: giving everyone the chance to get on and making our country a better place to live."

The report says that MPs cannot see how the government will engage smaller charities and voluntary groups who wish to help deliver public services without changes.

Francis Maude, the cabinet secretary, and Nick Hurd, the minister leading the policy, are singled out in the report for failing to recognise how uninformed people are about what the phrase "big society" actually means.

The report says: "The minister for civil society [Hurd] did not recognise the problem, arguing that 'people fundamentally understand it [the big society]. I think that national consciousness is one thing we have achieved.' On the evidence before us, we must disagree."

The committee says that early examples of the big society in practice such as the Work Programme have left service providers such as the charitable sector with serious reservations.

"The danger is that big contractors and the largest charities continue to dominate at the expense of small and local providers," it concludes.

The committee expresses concern about the introduction of the private sector to public services in the name of the big society and recommends greater clarity on the roles of charitable, private and public providers of public services.

"The ambition to open up public services to new providers has prompted concerns about the role of private companies which have not thus far been adequately addressed by ministers," it concludes.The report also says the Big Society Capital, the big society bank, which was set up to invest in or set up loans for projects, will not be able to provide a solution for many smaller organisations that have had their funding cut.

"Big Society Capital will not provide the solution to the 'funding gap' for many small local charities who do not wish to take out loans. The government must acknowledge that in the short term Big Society Capital is unlikely to resolve the current funding gap'," it states.

The committee concludes by asking for the creation of a single big society minister to help other ministers to drive through this agenda by April 2012.

It also requests the implementation of an impact assessment, to be applied to every government policy, statutory instrument, and new bill, which answers the simple question: "what substantively will this do to build social capital, people power, and social entrepreneurs?"

A Cabinet Office spokeswoman said that there was already a minister, Nick Hurd, who has responsibility for the project, and disagreed on whether enough has been done for grassroots projects over the last 18 months. 

"Programmes such as Community Organisers, Community First and National Citizen Service will help stimulate more social action by bringing people together in the communities they live in to solve problems and make the most of opportunities and assets. And there is a clear plan of how government will support this. The Localism Bill give power back to local communities, while the Open Public Services White Paper will empower individuals by giving them choice over services and empower neighbourhoods to take greater control over local services. In addition the Cabinet Office business plan sets out a clear set of objectives for the Office for Civil Society.

Equality briefing no. 5

At Leicestershire Centre for Integrated Living (LCIL) this morning, presenting one of our region-spanning briefing events. This is the fifth in a series of six meetings held over the past few weeks. The others have been held in Derby (Wed 20 July), Wellingborough (27 July), Nottingham (28 July), Oakham (Wed 03 Aug) and one more to be held in Grantham. All in all, there are eight organisations represented here today:

• Disability Nottinghamshire
• Genesis / LAMP Direct
• Good Thinking
• Human Rights and Equalities Charnwood
• Leicester Council of Faiths
• Leicester Deaf Action Group
• Leicestershire Centre for Integrated Living
• Loughborough Women's Aid
• The Race Equality Centre

Up till now the briefings have been conducted by Chino Cabon, Policy Officer at The Race Equality Centre (TREC) and Kelly Jussab, Project Officer at REDP. Kelly has a family obligation today and has asked George Ballentyne, Equality and Diversity Officer at Leicester Council of Faiths, to deputise for her.

Each of these meetings has been hosted by a member of REDP's Core Reference Group from that locality. Today's host is Leicester Deaf Action Group (with assistance from two members of Signing Network). Oas from LDAG opens the meeting, giving us a historical overview and an outline of the future prospects of their user-led organisation.

George gives the Beginners' Guide to REDP, Chino speaks about the Equality Act 2010 (concentrating on the terminology used in the Act and its relationship with previous anti-discrimination legislation) then George is back up front to present on the Localism Bill and Big Society.

The whole thing takes about three hours (including lunch) and I'm glad to say we get some positive evaluations from the attendees.

New questions over big society as tsar leaves post after a year

Following the Guardian's coverage of the latest relaunch of the Prime Minister's "Big Society" at the start of this week (see blog post Monday 23 May), it carries this news today.

New questions over big society as tsar leaves post after a year

Cabinet office insists departure does not mark scaling back of project, but Labour say flagship policy is descending into farce

By Polly Curtis, Whitehall correspondent

Lord Wei, the man parachuted into the House of Lords to lead the government's "big society" project, is to leave his post after less than a year.

Wei, dubbed the big society tsar, is leaving to work for a charity. The Cabinet Office has scrapped his role and the Downing Street policy unit will now take responsibility for the programme.

A Cabinet Office spokesman insisted that it did not mark a scaling back of the prime minister's ambitions for the big society, saying that Wei had completed the work of developing the policy so there is no need to replace him.

The news came just a day after David Cameron gave a major speech on the subject in what was widely interpreted as his fourth relaunch of the project, which has struggled to register with the public and faced cynicism from Tory backbenchers.

Cameron thanked the peer for his "hard work" while Wei said he was glad to have played a "modest" role in the project.

Labour said the flagship policy was descending into a "farce" with no one in government now responsible for it.

Wei said in February that he was scaling back his hours to spend more time with his family and earn more money. His statement caused widespread comment about the practicality of a policy that relied, in part, on the development of a volunteering culture that could clash with the realities of people's everyday working lives.

It also emerged that when Wei was asked to do the job, only at the last minute did he find out the post was unpaid.

He also had to drop his work with other charities to avoid a conflict of interest. It is understood that the government was unable to offer him a paid adviser post as it was attempting to reduce the number of such appointments.

He was given a Tory peerage – making him Lord Wei of Shoreditch – and a desk in the Cabinet Office as the "big society tsar".

Nat Wei, 34, is a former management consultant who has no private income to fall back on. He worked for Ark, one of the biggest sponsors of academies, before setting up the Shaftesbury Partnership, a social entrepreneurial company.

He will now go to work Community Foundation Network, charity that promotes "community philanthropy".

Cameron said in a statement: "Nat has worked incredibly hard over two years to help develop policies that support the big society.

"He has played an important role in delivering key initiatives like community organisers, national citizen service and the big society bank. I wish him every success in his new role with the Community Foundation Network."

Wei said: "I will always be proud to have played a modest role in helping lay the foundations here on which the big society will be built in years to come.

"I want to thank everyone, but particularly the prime minister, for giving me this opportunity and for pursuing this vision with courage and determination.

"I look forward to helping in my own small way outside government – because it is out there, in local communities, that the heavy lifting must now be done."

Tessa Jowell, shadow minister for the Cabinet Office, said: "No doubt everyone will wish Nat Wei well, but yet again the big society is descending into farce.

"Only a day after Cameron told us all to take more responsibility, it appears that there will now be nobody in his government responsible for bringing the big society into reality."

Cameron defends the "big society"

This is from The Guardian's Professional Local Government Network online service.

Cameron defends the "big society"

By Kate Hodge, Guardian Professional

David Cameron has defended his idea of the "big society" amid continued criticism. Speaking as the government published its Giving White Paper, Cameron claimed that big society was not just a money saving exercise, but a strong commitment to empowering communities. He also unveiled plans to give £40m to the third sector, including £30 million to help volunteer organisations and a £10m social action fund. Many welcomed plans to introduce tax incentives to promote charitable donation. Others, however, claimed the schemes were a desperate attempt by the government to help charities struggling to cope with the effects of strict economic austerity. Rachael Maskell, Unite's national officer, said, "Unless the White Paper addresses the funding crisis in a more strategic way and also the massive job losses already affecting charities, the White Paper will be no more than a white elephant."

Stand by for Big Society 4.0

Here's Michael White, writing in today's Guardian about the latest relaunch of David Cameron's "Big Society".

Stand by for Big Society 4.0

David Cameron's 'big society' strategy: if it it ain't working – relaunch it

By Michael White

The cerebral French have a saying about public policy. "It will work in practice, but will it work in theory?" David Cameron has the more familiar problem with his "big society" concept. Will it work in practice at a time when economic hardship is already putting pressure on voters' spare time and charitable impulses?

But he's also got the French problem. Even as a campaign slogan in 2010 it felt more like a fluffy add-on devised by his biking strategy guru, Steve Hilton, than something that would make people go, "Gosh, y'know, he's right", and sign on to help the Samaritans on a Saturday night.

Hence yesterday's relaunch, the fourth on most reckonings. As part of the Tory detox, Dave launched Big Society 1.0 well before polling day. Tory MPs were sniffy, but he persevered to show who was boss. Besides, his Witney constituency is so affluent it could almost work there. Liverpool, where he relaunched Big Society 2.0 with writer Phil Redmond, a year later, is a tougher call.

But Dave's a fast learner, and in February he had another try at grandiose Somerset House on the Thames. Inappropriate or what? It looks like a palace but is actually the first purpose-built civil-service building in England – the embodiment of the Georgian Big State and stuffed with quill-pen pushers.

Although he wheeled on a billionaire to write a charity cheque, the Daily Mirror dubbed Big Society 3.0 a "big con" in which hardly any Tory MPs were doing voluntary work. Undeterred, he rolled out Big Society 4.0, complete with its own white paper and the idea of using cash machines to solicit donations. But it's not all about money. Got that?

Read this article, along with reader comments (and the opportunity to make your own) on the Guardian website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/23/stand-by-big-society?INTCMP=SRCH

Big Society in The New York Times

In her Guardian article (Saturday 21 May), reproduced in this blog earlier today, Polly Toynbee refers to a piece by David Brooks, author of The Social animal, about David Cameron's "Big Society" published in The New York Times. Here is that article (from the edition of Thursday 19 May).

It's intersting to consider how people from outside the UK see what's happening here, isn't it? There's considerable cross-fertilisation between the kinds of social, political and economic reform we're seeing in the UK and in the US. Normally it's seen that we're seen as the one lagging behind; is that what this article says?

The Big Society

By David Brooks

Fifty years ago, Jane Jacobs published a book called The Death and Life of Great American Cities. The book was not only an indictment of contemporary urban development; it offered a vision for a healthy community. Jacobs described a streetscape as an organic ballet, as the comings and goings of shop owners, office workers, cops and parents. She described the complex interplay of many different types of people on one city block.

Here in Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron’s government is trying to foster that sort of society. Until Cameron, Britain — like the U.S. — had one party that spoke on behalf of the market (the Conservatives) and one party that spoke on behalf of the state (Labour). But Cameron is initiating a series of policies, under the rubric “Big Society,” that seek to nurture community bonds, civic activism and social capital.

The Big Society started in part as a political gadget, as a way to distinguish the current Conservatives from the more individualistic ethos of the Thatcher years. It has turned out to be something of a damp squib politically. Most voters have no idea what the phrase “Big Society” means. But, substantively, the legislative package has been a success. The British government is undergoing a fundamental transformation.

Cameron inherited one of the largest governments in the affluent world (under Gordon Brown, the public spending reached 51 percent of G.D.P.). It was also one of the most centralized. The national government accounts for 70 percent of total government spending in Britain, compared with 55 percent in the U.S., 35 percent in Japan and 20 percent in Germany.

Cameron has unveiled a series of measures to decentralize power to local governments, to increase government transparency and to disburse welfare provisions to a variety of delivery mechanisms.

His government has boosted the number of charter schools. There’s been a welfare reform bill to encourage work and to get rid of the perverse incentives that induced people to remain on the dole. The police forces are going to have to start answering to the public. Twelve more big cities will have now elected mayors. Local communities have more control of federal money and run things themselves. There’s been a raft of provisions trying to use the insights from behavioral economics.

Cameron’s trying to get the British people to change their social norms. Many British governments have effectively said: If you pay your taxes you can sit back and we experts will take care of your problems. The Thatcher government said: Get off your couch and start a business. Cameron says: Get off the couch and take responsibility for your community. Cameron is trying to spark active citizenship.

The measures are not without critics. From the left, Polly Toynbee, a columnist for The Guardian, argues that the current centralized system ensures uniformity and fairness. But with localism and decentralization, she continues, the richer areas will outperform the poorer areas. Inequality and corruption will replace fairness and uniformity.

Others see the Big Society as the gentle mask to cover savage spending cuts. Still others see it as upper-middle-class noblesse oblige. Working-class families who have two jobs and who come home exhausted at 10 in the evening don’t need to be lectured by the government on why they should volunteer at the blood bank.

There’s some truth to those critiques. But the Big Society programs still have the potential to produce enormous benefits for Britain.

The people who thrive in a globalized information economy have the ability to process complex waves of information. They have the ability to navigate incredibly diverse social environments.

Where do people learn these skills? They learn them when they grow up in and are nurtured by rich social networks. They learn them when they live within vibrant institutions that pass down practices and habits. They learn them when they live in areas of high social trust, where people are able to reach out and work together.

By decentralizing power, and inciting local energies, Cameron’s reforms are fostering the sorts of environments where human capital grows.

Cameron still has to fight for these programs, especially against the bureaucracy’s bias for uniformity and control. And the big shortcoming is that the Big Society skirts commercial life. If centralized government weakens community networks, then concentrated corporate power weakens the networks of entrepreneurs and tradesmen.

As the scholars at the think tank ResPublica have pointed out, big corporations use the complex tax code, dense regulations and state contracting rules to stifle small-business competition. Jane Jacob’s vibrant sidewalks didn’t only benefit from flourishing community groups, they benefitted from skilled workers linking together to share capital and work. The Big Society needs to connect with economic aspirations and broadly shared prosperity.

But, even so, Cameron is doing something interesting. No other government is trying so hard to tie public policy to the latest research into how we learn and grow.

Read this article on the website of The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/opinion/20brooks.html?_r=1&ref=columnists