The ConDem Coalition's "Big Society" And How It Will Affect The Borough
There is a scene in the film "Angela's Ashes" where Frank McCourt's impoverished mother, played by Emily Watson, went to a local welfare board to plead for some money to feed her family. It was a humiliating experience. If the ConDem Coalition Government has its way, this will be the future for many impoverished families throughout the country, as the "Big Society" manifests itself as a postcode lottery for social welfare provision by local charities and voluntary organisations staffed by local busybodies and individuals with missions to moralise the poor. Readers of this blog might be sceptical that this is where the "Big Society" will take us, but some of those experts who have studied what exactly this notion of the "Big Society", so often referred to by the Coalition, actually means have come precisely to the conclusion that it involves the dismantling of the welfare state and collective provision of government services. You can read what one of these experts has to say here:
http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/2010/07/19/camerons-big-society-will-leave-the-poor-and-powerless-behind
Although the government hasn't given a detailed programme of what the "Big Society" will mean, from what we know it seems that it will involve the replacement of collective and state provision of services with greater reliance on voluntary, charitable, and private sector provision in such areas of welfare, social services for the poor and elderly, housing, education, healthcare, and even policing. Some of us who have studied British political history might have the feeling of deja vu all over again, as these ideas, although packaged as new by the Coalition, are as old as the nineteenth century. The debate concerning state versus voluntary and private provision of services was very lively at the turn of the twentieth century, particularly at the time when Lloyd George was Chancellor of the Exchequer and was laying the foundations of the welfare state. In fact Lloyd George was playing something of a catch up with the rival economic power of Germany, which had pioneered the welfare state and state social insurance in the late nineteenth century. The debate we are going to have about the ConDem "Big Society" is going to be a rehash of the old arguments we can study in our history books, whereby the case for state collective provision for welfare and other services will have to be made all over again, only this time it will be about dismantling state collective provision rather than establishing it. Back at the beginning of the twentieth century there were studies by many early sociologists and philanthropists such as Rowntree's studies of York, which showed considerable poverty was in no way eradicated or diminished by charitable and voluntary sector provision. This was the main argument of those proposing state provision of welfare and other services, in that charities and the voluntary sector just would not be able to provide what is needed or provide a consistent universal standard of help and service nationally. Also there was the stigma of those who were poor and needed help having to apply for something discretionary, rather than as a statutory right.
Anybody studying Rowntree's periodic studies of poverty in York will note the gradual improvement in the condition of the poor as each instalment of the welfare state was being constructed throughout the first half of the twentieth century. Charitable and voluntary provision for the poor, as well as other social services and healthcare, were supplementary to the state becoming the main provider for social security, social services, and free health care through the National Health Service. This is something which Britain could be proud of. Most Conservatives accepted this arrangement, such as Harold Macmillan and Edward Heath. Even Margaret Thatcher never went as far as the ConDems in their plans to dismantle the welfare state and even the National Health Service and to take us back to the nineteenth century where such services will be local, and the voluntary and charitable sectors will be involved in service provision.
There is a scene in the film "Angela's Ashes" where Frank McCourt's impoverished mother, played by Emily Watson, went to a local welfare board to plead for some money to feed her family. It was a humiliating experience. If the ConDem Coalition Government has its way, this will be the future for many impoverished families throughout the country, as the "Big Society" manifests itself as a postcode lottery for social welfare provision by local charities and voluntary organisations staffed by local busybodies and individuals with missions to moralise the poor. Readers of this blog might be sceptical that this is where the "Big Society" will take us, but some of those experts who have studied what exactly this notion of the "Big Society", so often referred to by the Coalition, actually means have come precisely to the conclusion that it involves the dismantling of the welfare state and collective provision of government services. You can read what one of these experts has to say here:
http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/2010/07/19/camerons-big-society-will-leave-the-poor-and-powerless-behind
Although the government hasn't given a detailed programme of what the "Big Society" will mean, from what we know it seems that it will involve the replacement of collective and state provision of services with greater reliance on voluntary, charitable, and private sector provision in such areas of welfare, social services for the poor and elderly, housing, education, healthcare, and even policing. Some of us who have studied British political history might have the feeling of deja vu all over again, as these ideas, although packaged as new by the Coalition, are as old as the nineteenth century. The debate concerning state versus voluntary and private provision of services was very lively at the turn of the twentieth century, particularly at the time when Lloyd George was Chancellor of the Exchequer and was laying the foundations of the welfare state. In fact Lloyd George was playing something of a catch up with the rival economic power of Germany, which had pioneered the welfare state and state social insurance in the late nineteenth century. The debate we are going to have about the ConDem "Big Society" is going to be a rehash of the old arguments we can study in our history books, whereby the case for state collective provision for welfare and other services will have to be made all over again, only this time it will be about dismantling state collective provision rather than establishing it. Back at the beginning of the twentieth century there were studies by many early sociologists and philanthropists such as Rowntree's studies of York, which showed considerable poverty was in no way eradicated or diminished by charitable and voluntary sector provision. This was the main argument of those proposing state provision of welfare and other services, in that charities and the voluntary sector just would not be able to provide what is needed or provide a consistent universal standard of help and service nationally. Also there was the stigma of those who were poor and needed help having to apply for something discretionary, rather than as a statutory right.
Anybody studying Rowntree's periodic studies of poverty in York will note the gradual improvement in the condition of the poor as each instalment of the welfare state was being constructed throughout the first half of the twentieth century. Charitable and voluntary provision for the poor, as well as other social services and healthcare, were supplementary to the state becoming the main provider for social security, social services, and free health care through the National Health Service. This is something which Britain could be proud of. Most Conservatives accepted this arrangement, such as Harold Macmillan and Edward Heath. Even Margaret Thatcher never went as far as the ConDems in their plans to dismantle the welfare state and even the National Health Service and to take us back to the nineteenth century where such services will be local, and the voluntary and charitable sectors will be involved in service provision.
But how would all this manifest itself on a local scale in the borough? The blog will try to provide a preview of how the dismantling of the state's provision of welfare and social services, and many other services provided by the local authority, will affect local residents. The devolution of many government and local government statutory services to voluntary and private bodies, will be a recipe for chaos and a postcode lottery for service provision for not just the most vulnerable and poor in our community, but also for all residents who rely on statutory and regulated services from the Town Hall. It will be a charter for busy bodies and for crones and cronies of the Town Hall to establish themselves with quasi authority, and funded by your Council Tax to govern and intrude in all our lives in many areas of service provision currently provided by the Town Hall. In a prosperous borough such as Kensington and Chelsea, there might be no shortage of articulate individuals with the time and the money to engage in many local initiatives to bring decision making on many issues away from the Town Hall to Residents Associations, or local societies or local planning campaigns. This will ensure their voices will be heard more than the inarticulate and those too busy with work to get involved in local decision making or providing local services. Do we really want to move to a society where a committee of prosperous residents acquire for themselves powerful decision making roles over many aspects of our lives, from local policing, to parking regulations, to planning decision making, as well as local charities being the port of call for when we are poor? Do we really want a post code lottery for finding a General Practitioner who will be willing to provide an expensive but effective medication for a chronic illness? Some parts of the borough may be very desirable places to live in, but others may deteriorate with poor standards of service provision, dragging down house prices, and with there never being enough money to maintain the infrastructure of the area. Also, there will be the risk of increased poverty and crime, as collective provision of social services and welfare is withdrawn in favour of more local initiatives with limited budgets which cannot cope with the extent of local need. In short we will be going back to how things were in the nineteenth century. Except that the world has changed much since then, and the problems which gave rise to the intervention of the state in the twentieth century will be even more urgent after we get a taste of what the ConDem Coalition has in store for us.
Posts
