Centre for Local Policy Studies

Professor John Diamond (University’ s Centre for Local Policy Studies) comments that ” There is lots to welcome in the proposed Big Society in the North discussion. I  think – obvious point really – that we don’t need “permission” to engage in these discussions. And the more contributions the better. We do need to think about what each of our individual contribution might be. And we need to think about how those reflections/suggestions are creating opportunities to think creatively. So far so good. What concerns me (more generally) is the sense that some of these discussions are a historical or a political. We need to understand what the Coalition are proposing. How it will work (in their terms). And then how we might or might not want to work with it or challenge their proposals. So, pause for breath…..and hang onto what we know, what skills experience and political awareness there is and then how do we create an alliance of practitioners/activists or a network of networks which are willing to look at ways of resisting the cuts and to look for ways of reasserting a vision of the Big Society rooted in social justice. ”

Big Society in the North, some useful links:

Living with Rats (Julian Dobson Blog)

Professor John Diamond (the University’s Centre for Local Policy Studies) reflects on some of the headlines from the news this week: ” Looking through the report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies released this week on the impact of the Coalition’s Budget and the increasing number of examples from the Voluntary and Community sector of cuts in local authority grants to organisations you would have to conclude that the first Budget of the Coalition did not address issues of equality and fairness. Continue reading…

Professor John Diamond (University’s Centre for Local Policy Studies) points to continuing absences in the Coalition’s Big Society initiative: “I am struck by the notable absences in the Coalition’s Big Society project. There are, at least, two really central ones – for me- and they are any references to Social Justice and Equalities.  As I listen to those who are responding to the Coalition’s latest announcements and also trying to make sense of the scale of the cuts what is striking is how there are these different conversations going on. From the Coalition there are (at least) 2 different conversations : the first is all about the need to cut public spending and the second is how the Coalition are promoting the idea of a supportive/facilitative approach to local people and local communities to be able to hold local politicians to account. These different conversations are – it seems to me quite disconnected- the scale of the cuts in the public sector makes the second proposition meaningless.

The papers/tv news this week has focussed on the pronouncements from the Bank of England.  Seumas Milne (The Guardian – Cameron could be forced to U-turn if there is a double dip  12 August 2010) provides a really useful summary of what could happen. And as you think about the impact of a double dip recession – think of the scale of cuts across the public sector- and the impact this will have on youth unemployment, health care, social services and education not to mention work force development needs across the public sector – then try and slot into that train of thoughts the claims made by the advocates of the Big Society. And notice how there is little – if any- discussion of the impact these changes have for those excluded/marginalised/discriminated against. Speaking a language which promotes values of social justice/equalities is one of those necessary but not sufficient conditions. At the moment the Big Society fails to meet either of these.

What is equally troubling for me is the response to the Big Society from those who may have real and genuine concerns over the cuts in spending but see the Coalition’s Big Society is something to engage with – perhaps to access resources or to try and influence. Is this possible? At best the Jury is out.  But I am not so sure. Read the Economist (August 14 2010) and article: The Unlikely Revolutionary.  It is a profile of David Cameron – and very positive too but no surprise there. Why read it?  Because it gives some real insight into the thinking of the Coalition. The argument put by the Economist is that these changes (public spending cuts, changes in education/health care/policing etc) are only the start.  For the Economist the Coalition is real transforming administration much more so than anything since 1945. It is for these reasons (and others) that we need to read the Big Society script and to think about what is not there and why and then to think about what we are going to do about it.”

Professor John Diamond (University’s Centre for Local Policy Studies) reviews some recent stories from the national press on the Big Society:

“Reading through the papers over the weekend the connections between the Big Society idea, the Coalition’s Budget and the emerging impact of the cuts became clearer. There are two articles which are worth looking at – Polly Toynbee in the Guardian (7 August 2010) in her piece :” The ‘big society’ is a big fat lie – just follow the money” sets out her critique  of what has been proposed so far set against the cuts which have been announced. Her final paragraph is worth repeating:

“Charities are an essential buffer between the state and the market and a beacon for innovation, but the idea that a sector that is just 2.3% of the workforce can replace the welfare state is not so much fanciful as downright dishonest. Whenever you hear talk of the big society, just follow the money.” Her analysis of what is being proposed by Cameron and the Coalition is reflected in another piece I saw this weekend. Anushka Asthana in the Observer (8 August 2010) provides a powerful and thought provoking summary of how the cuts are affecting women across the UK . In an article called “Why Women Will Bear Brunt of Budget Cuts” she makes the point that it is women who are disproportionately affected by cuts in welfare benefits as well as cuts in other services (including Sure Start). We know too that it is women who make up the majority of carers and who work across the VCS. The traditional summer period (from July to August) has traditionally been a “quiet” period in politics. This year we are seeing and hearing not only the economic impact of the May Election and the Coalition Government but also the social, welfare and political consequences of that result. So whilst the Big Society may appear to some to be of marginal importance I actually think it is symbolic of a broader and deeper set of changes which its advocates want to see put in place. And we can see how there are different and contradictory suggestions as to how the VCS might respond. And I think that we need to get our priorities right. The real challenge for all of us is the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review in October – it is not – I think whether the Big Society offers something new for the Sector. And that is why I think both Polly Toynbee and Anushka Asthana have got their focus right.”

Discrimination Law Association

This is THE essential conference for equality law practitioners.

The key note speech will be given by Mrs Justice Laura Cox.

Major changes to the law will be presented by discrimination law experts.

Karon Monaghan QC will discuss what is in and what’s out – new definitions and concepts – disability discrimination, gender re-assignment, combined discrimination, harassment etc.

John Halford will discuss the new Public Sector Equality Duty and how it can be used by practitioners.

Robin Allen QC will consider how the Equality Act can promote particular needs and balance rights between different groups. This will cover genuine occupational requirements, exceptions and positive action. 

In the afternoon workshop sessions led by experienced practitioners will provide opportunities to discuss specific applications of the new law in more detail. Topics covered will include disability discrimination, equal pay, combined discrimination etc.

For more information, please click here

Professor John Diamond (University’s Centre for Local Policy Studies) returns to the question of a Sense of History: ” An interesting absentee in the Coalition’s claims for their Big Society is any reference to their own different histories and ways of relating to the localism debate. So, the Liberals do have a tradition and history informed by a set of ideas (and an ideology), which promotes localism – the decentralisation of decision-making. Whether you agree with them or not they are able to point to examples at a local level where they have attempted to put into practice their ideas. David Cameron’s idea of a Big Society, however, has to cope with the way it is being announced – which seems the antithesis of a decentralised/devolved discussion alongside the way in which in the 1980s and 1990s his Party centralised decision making.

Continue reading…

Professor John Diamond (University’s Centre for Local Policy Studies) responds to the recent discussion on the Coalition’s Big Society proposals: “It does seem to me really important that we do not get sucked into discussing the content of the Big Society at the expense of exploring its underlying sets of values and ideas. And an important part of the conversation needs to be based upon seeing where the Big Society concept sits within the family tree of apparently linked ideas. On Wednesday (21 July) in the Guardian Jonathan Freedland  (There is a good idea in Cameron’s ‘big society’ screaming to get out ) argued that it was important not to just oppose what was being described in Liverpool this week but rather to try and occupy the language and ideas. At heart – Freedland was suggesting – was the nature of the relationship between the individual and the state and the centrality of collective or communal efforts (historically) to protect and support the individual when the state opposes such intervention. As he shows it is from this tradition that we get mutual societies, credit unions, trade unions and the health service. Continue reading…

Arriving at the Hope University site and hoping to know more about the Big Society from the PM, I was greeted by a large group of TV crew and reporters at the entrance. After going through the security check, I expected to see large number of representatives from the voluntary and community. Although there were some, most of them were from the business sector and local Conservatives / Lib Dem party.  The Prime Minister gave his run down of his vision of the Big Society, followed by presentations from the four selected areas, a stunt by Phil Redman and a tightly controlled Q & A.  I still couldn’t understand how exactly it would work, there was no mention of how the local infrastructure would support this and what about the cuts that would affect the voluntary groups? Would that mean they would still carry on their work but such work will be completely expenses free? Continue reading…

As the Big Society is revealed it is difficult to see how this equates with the rhetoric of fairness that was an ever present feature of the electoral campaign from both coalition partners. David Cameron argued yesterday in Liverpool that the Big Society is not just a cost cutting measure and I think that is true – there is a much clearer ideological intent here to shift the burden of welfare and public service away from the state. Will such a step lead to greater empowerment of communities? Well, there may be some creative initiatives within communities through social enterprise or mutual support but we would need to look at this in the context of other social and economic forces that will be unleashed by the reductions in public spending and a declining state sector. As a region Merseyside has a high proportion of workers in the state sector, the regeneration of the Liverpool economy is unlikely to be sustainable without continuing financial support and the economic and social forces that are being unleashed as the backdrop to the Big Society are likely to generate patterns of decline, unemployment and social degeneration that are reminiscent of the 1980’s. It is ironic that in the 1980’s the language of co-operation, empowerment and mutuality were being deployed as part the alternative economic strategy for the ‘new urban left’, while now this language has been co-opted by the architects of the Big Society.

Stuart Speeden

Head of CLPS

Professor John Diamond (University’s Centre for Local Policy Studies) suggests that “We do need to engage with the Coalition’s proposals for their Big Society. It does appear that in the 4 pilot areas they have announced (including two in the North West – Liverpool and the Eden Valley in Cumbria) we can expect to see their ideas being put into practice. At the same time I would say that reading both Larry Elliott (Slash and Burn is Osborne’s Cunning Plan) and Gary Younge (The Coalition doesn’t want to heal Britain’s leg but amputate it) in today’s Guardian (19 July 2010). They provide some detail, analysis and texture to the context within which the Big Society is being proposed. In another item in the Guardian today they report on the proposed merger of the Education Departments of Westminster Council and Hammersmith and Fulham Council. These are, I think, important developments and more than just “moving bits of the furniture around” – they represent really profound and important changes. Last week the changes to the organisation and structure of the Health Service represent a real change in the commissioning and procurement of health services across England. And whilst we may (I expect will) become focussed on the internal stories associated with these developments I do think we need to keep a sense of the Big Picture.

The Big Picture is a that fundamental set of changes and funding decisions which are not based upon the kind of inclusive/participatory processes which are claimed by the Big Society is being imposed. In fact it does feel like a very top down/command and control approach. So what does this tell us of the underlying approach of the Coalition to the public sector reforms it is putting in place? So far, I think, we can say the opportunities to question, challenge and critique the reforms are being contained by the Coalition. As each department announces its proposals ministers are able to say wait until the Comprehensive Spending Review in the autumn. The risk is that we become used to the specific changes and seek to work within that framework and do not even challenge the framework. Over the weekend I heard a member of one of the national VCS organisations argue that the cuts needed to be implemented sensitively. It seems to me that as part of this on-going discussion across the sector we need to ask a series of questions of those proposing the cuts – what is your basis for this? How did you arrive at this? And not to accept the framework which is being used to legitimise these changes. And I think too to ask how it is possible to reconcile the idea of a Big Society with a broken and fractured one?”

Professor John Diamond (University’s Centre for Local Policy Studies) on a report from UNISON. “We need to remind ourselves that the current policy and political discussion on the cuts and the choices being proposed by the Coalition go back to the origins of the recession. And that part of the difficulty in sustaining a coherent sense of what is happening across many aspects of the public sector/voluntary and not for profit sector is how it gets compartmentalised. And we don’t always get to see the whole picture or to see the connections between choices. In November 2009 Cardiff University published a report on Government Policy, Recession and the Voluntary Sector. The Report – commissioned by the public service union UNISON – was prepared by Steve Davies who works at the University. The Report should be widely read across the sector but also by those who are interested in seeing the links between policy and political choices as well the economic impact of the recession on public spending. The issues raised by the Report are being discussed in an event hosted by UNISON at the House of Commons on July 27th. Continue reading…

VESL (Volunteers for Educational Support and Learning) is a UK charity that provides meaningful short, mid and long term volunteering opportunities in Sri Lanka, India and Thailand.  Projects run are carefully selected to ensure maximum benefits are brought to the local communities, while also making every effort to ensure volunteers have an unforgettable experience.  It is a not for profit organisation. Edge Hill University is supporting VESL through one of its University Challenge projects. Continue reading…

Professor John Diamond (the University’s Centre for Local Policy Studies) discusses some of the key ideas in this report from NESTA:  ”There are 2 linked (but separate) discussions going around at the moment: first one says that we could (must?) use the current cuts crisis to re-imagine what a public sector could look like – and that in order to develop that idea we should avoid opposing the Coalition Cuts for their own sake. We need to look at what could be done differently and to think creatively about alternative ways of producing and managing public services. This idea is also reflected in recent reports from the New Economics Foundation who together with NESTA have published reports – see The Challenges of Co-production (2009) and Mass Localism (2010). Many of these ideas were prefigured in a paper by Geoff Mulgan (2007) – Ready or Not? Taking Innovation in the Public Sector Seriously. The second discussion says: very few public sector managers have direct experience of making the kind of cuts set out by the Coalition. You would have to go back to that generation of managers who were working in the late 1970s/early 1980s to get a sense of what it might mean and, as a consequence, we need to help them plan (and cut) sensitively or at least in awareness. Continue reading…

In the final session of the day, Stuart looked at the challenges of human resource management. The first was the changes to the ‘psychological contract’ that have occurred since the 1970s where the contract was tied to a job for life, loyalty to the company and in the public sector a good pension.  Since the 1970s this has changed with the expectation that employees will be flexible and will move more frequently within the job market and he went on to discuss the ramifications for human resource managers.

Stuart continued his discussion by focussing on other challenges such as: leadership; equality and diversity; performance management; skills & competencies; organisational change and workforce planning.

As with the other presentations, there were a number of questions such as: how do you manage sick leave? Is there a particular type of person who is prone to sickness or other forms of absence such as taking ‘duvet days’?  Do organisations focus too much on producing measurements of activities (bureaucracy) to the detriment of actual outcomes (for example, bringing down sickness rates)?

In the third session, Stuart reminded us of the significant changes that have taken place over the past 25 years in public service organisations.  Significant drivers for change have been efficiency and value for money.  At the same time there has been considerable centralisation of control of these organisations and increasing regulation by the State.  Throughout the 1980s and most of the 1990s contracting out was seen as introducing competition in public services.  From 1997 a change to a new form of public management can be identified whereby other aspects to just the purely economic were taken into account.

Stuart then showed how human resource management had changed as a response to these changes and how a number of private sector management techniques had been adopted in this response.  He reminded us that partnership has now become an important way to bring together a range of service providers to deliver complex projects and policies.