Let’s start this column with an apparently simple piece of mental arithmetic. What are you left with when you subtract something from not very much? More of not very much? Less than not very much? Ponder that for a while.
As we adjust to life post-emergency Budget, perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised by the size and scope of the cuts in spending it contained. The portents were there for all to see. We were repeatedly warned told by a newly-formed government that the cupboard was bare, that there would be difficult times ahead and that we would all be ‘in it together’. The signposts were erected very quickly, and we, as a nation, waited with baited breath to see where they would lead.
Yet, despite the warnings, as the dust settles on the Budget my fear is that the most vulnerable some parts of society will be more ‘in it’ (or perhaps, in for it) than others. It’s true the country as a whole will feel the pinch for years to come, but poorer communities where public services generally play a prominent role in people’s lives will be at a distinct disadvantage.
They may feel the pinch twice – firstly as a result of direct benefit cuts and secondly through cuts to public services – and we don’t yet know what the impact of those will be. In fact, many of these communities will also suffer further as they lack the skills and capacity even to begin to participate in the debate about future public services – so they will find themselves disenfranchised from influencing the very services they must rely upon.
There is a very real risk that those with the least stand to lose most in the age of austerity. As the government itself has acknowledged, addressing this problem in the long term will need more than just applying better sticking plasters or creating a stronger safety net. It means giving those most vulnerable neighbourhoods the knowledge, tools, confidence and freedom to fashion their own effective and lasting solutions to local problems. Tackling the poverty of aspiration will be just as important as remedying the symptoms of material disadvantage.
This will not come as a surprise to those of us in the ‘community sector’ experienced in involving communities in local decision making and developing them so that they have the structures and knowledge to make their own decisions and take collective action and responsibility – something that neither central government or local authorities can make happen on their own.
I found Lord Wei’s recent affirmation that the idea of the ‘neighbourhood group’ being more involved in consultations and taking over and running assets for community benefit was at the heart of the Big Society interesting, as this concept was central to a Groundwork project in Manchester that I had the opportunity to show to Samantha Cameron during the Conservative Party conference last year.
The success of the project – Centenary Gardens – is entirely down to the drive and determination of a community who had very clear views on how a local issue should be dealt with. The site used to be a derelict and dangerous piece of land in Old Trafford. A partnership of Groundwork, a group of residents, the local authority, a school and a youth club worked together to secure its transformation into a green space that, as a result of addressing their original concerns and implementing their solutions, inspires them to take on the job of its ongoing maintenance.
It was heartening to see this type of ‘neighbourhood group’ activity is described by Lord Wei as being at the heart of the Big Society. If we are truly committed to ensuring communities like those in Old Trafford are able to play a full and active role in the brave new world, we will continue to need practical interventions to help empower people to interact with local public bodies and allow them to do so cost-effectively and with the greatest possible impact.
Driving forward a policy of local empowerment which doesn’t focus in particular on those least equipped to respond will exacerbate inequality. If delivered well, however, a platform can be created for these communities to fashion a future where they are more resilient and less dependent on state intervention.
The Big Society is, at the moment, a defining concept for the way this government intends to play the cards it’s been dealt. We must be ready to respond to ensure those on the margins can take part and take more control of the places in which they live, and the cards they in turn have been dealt.
We have been told that the cupboard is bare, but now, more than ever, it’s important to make sure that those at a disadvantage don’t find it harder to access once it’s been restocked. The challenges of making this happen might seem great now but will pale in comparison to the potential savings in the future – and the prize on offer for all.
Added on Monday, 12th July 2010 | This entry has 0 comments
There is a very real risk that those with the least stand to lose most in the age of austerity. As the government itself has acknowledged, addressing this problem in the long term will need more than just applying better sticking plasters or creating a stronger safety net.