Excited by the Prime Minister’s closing passage
Poor old Big Society. It does sometimes seem to be doomed.
The day in December when David Cameron made his set piece speech on business and the Big Society was also the day England got trounced in its World Cup bid. Today the Prime Minister has tried again to get people enthused but I rather suspect it won’t be his speech in Milton Keynes but a certain Welsh footballer who will be dominating the news headlines for the next 24 hours.
But the speech is important reading for that dwindling band of us willing to put up some defence of the Prime Minister’s big idea. I’m afraid I have to admit to being pretty underwhelmed by most of it. The long section on Big Society public services served to confirm the suspicion that almost anything can be referred to as a Big Society initiative. There may, for example, be lots of reason to give parents more school choice and set up more Academies (although very few of those set up by the Coalition are in the poorest areas) but it is hard to see how individual parental competition for places and establishing institutions which can – if they choose – more easily divest themselves of links to the wider local community is anything to do with strengthening social bonds.
I haven’t read the Giving White Paper and the tax changes look like they could be powerful, but I do have some concerns about the approach to philanthropy. It is good to offer people new ways of donating but as people tend to over-estimate how much they give the danger of being asked to round up our grocery bills and add a quid to our cash withdrawal is that it will, at best, simply displace other forms of giving
But that’s enough churlishness. Near the end of the speech there was a passage that was genuinely interesting. It chimed with my point on Friday that social brain thinking should direct us to looking at the whole purposes and systems of public services not just some nudging at the margins (by the way, thanks for all the people who responded far too kindly to my pathetic attention seeking threat to stop blogging). The Prime Minister’s words also offers a lever for those of us trying to get the whole of Whitehall to be a bit more convincing in its commitment to the Prime Minister’s agenda
“ And in a way that I don’t think has been sufficiently appreciated, we are bringing that insight right into the heart of the business of government.
Right across Whitehall we are today applying to the design of policy the best that science teaches us about how people behave – and what drives their well-being.
We are revising the ‘Green Book’ – the basis on which the Government assesses the costs and benefits of different policies – to fully take account of their social impact.
We are developing a new test for all policies – that they should demonstrate not just how they help reduce public spending and cut regulation and bureaucracy – but how they create social value too.
And, the Office for National Statistics is developing new independent measures of well-being so that by the end of the year, we will be the first developed country in the world that is able rigorously to measure progress on more than just GDP.”
I have in the past questioned the Government’s resistance to strategy and measurement of any kind. But if a social value test is to be meaningful it will have to have some basis in method. Perhaps what method should be chosen is an issue we could debate here at the RSA?
On-line bouquets
It may be a slight disillusionment with the Big Society project, but I sense I am danger of becoming predictably critical of the Government. So it is a relief to be able to say something nice for a change.
I have just returned from chairing sessions for the 2011 National Digital Inclusion conference. I chaired the whole conference for the last two years but this time the organisers had the impetus of Martha Lane Fox’s Race Online 2012 campaign and lots of corporate partners so they were able to go upmarket and book Jon Snow. It was only when the great man pulled out at the last minute that they had to revert to yours truly (to be honest I’m happy nowadays even to be a substitute).
Anyway, Martha had done really well with her campaign. She was able to reveal yesterday that she has more than met her target of identifying more than 100,000 volunteers to help get the missing nine million on-line by next year. Just as importantly she has achieved something I always failed to do when a Government insider: get a joined up and ambitious approach to technology across Whitehall.
She told the conference she had spoken to a cabinet committee comprising 16 ministers and got them all to sign up to the idea of ‘digital by default’. The idea is simply that digital only should be the basis for new services with the parallel use of paper based systems having to be justified, rather than the old way of assuming paper and adding digital later. Of course, as Martha recognised, there are issues of access and inclusion but digital by default is a powerful way of increasing on-line take up and making real cost savings (something we all support).
Then following Martha was DCMS Secretary of State, Jeremy Hunt, (thanks a lot by the way to the tweeter who sent me a message just before I introduced him saying ‘make sure you don’t make the same mistake as Jim Naughtie’). Jeremy’s big moment was when he announced a new Government target that 90% of the country should have access to super-fast broadband by 2015, which is apparently a more ambitious target than any other major European country.
It is a common, and I think often fair, criticism of the Coalition that while it is very determined about cutting the deficit it doesn’t have anything like such a clear and credible story about supporting growth (or at least not one that goes beyond a standard free market assertion that a smaller state creates more space for the private sector). It remains to be seen how credible Jeremy hunt’s commitment is and it is, of course, one thing for 90% of the country to be able to access super-fast broadband, it is quite another for nine in ten people to actually have that access themselves.
But if we do hit the target it will make a genuine contribution to making possible major advances in public service delivery and engagement and a step change in productivity. It would certainly be good news story for the voters just before a General Election.
Ask not what the state can do for you ….
I had an interesting conversation yesterday with a number of people trying to work out how to respond to the idea of the Big Society. As I said yesterday, the report on Monday of the ACEVO Commission on the Big Society is likely to provide plenty of ammunition for those critical of the implementation of the idea, but this conversation was more at the level of principle.
Essentially the Big Society contains two ideas, one which is traditionally associated with the right and one which is more comfortable to the left. The former comprises a critique of the state, the latter a recognition that people should be expected to act in ways which do not simply avoid harming others but contribute to the public good. A problem for the right is that most evidence suggests civil society tends to be stronger in countries which have a relatively generous welfare state. A problem for the left is that in practice the way public services are organised – at least in England – too rarely creates feelings of empowerment among either staff or the public.
Part of the intellectual terrain over the next few years will therefore be a tussle between Conservatives seeking to show how a withdrawing state has created spaces for community initiatives while a left in search of a new narrative will need to demonstrate it has moved beyond the rampant statism of the Brown years and has credible plans for a strong, efficient and enabling public sector. The interesting thing right now is how weak, and lacking in much more than anecdote, both arguments sound.
But the thing that really stuck me was when someone quoted from the socialist thinker RH Tawney, who said in 1931 of the first Labour Government that ‘it asked too little and promised too much’ (when I checked the quote I found it had been used in a speech last year by David Miliband).
One of the things that David Cameron’s Government has in common with Margaret Thatcher’s is a message that people need to change. For Mrs Thatcher it was that people needed to be independent and enterprising, from Mr Cameron it is that people need to be more responsible and community-minded. In contrast Labour – whose ideology should have at its heart the idea of social citizenship – lacked any such over-arching exhortation. Instead Labour’s message was ‘leave it to us, we will sort it out with policies, plans, targets and tax credits’ – interspersed with occasionally delivering a shrill and populist telling off to anti-social youths or the work-shy.
It is not easy to challenge people to be wise and responsible citizens, especially with a 24 hour media constantly on the lookout for an excuse to accuse politicians of pomposity or hypocrisy (witness this excruciating interview with Francis Maude). But it is an essential task of political leadership and will be vital if the Coalition is to have a positive tale to tell through the coming years of austerity or if Labour is to find a way of connecting with people beyond its Northern heartlands.
Small but perfectly informed
After yesterday’s massive screed of a blog (someone sent me a text saying ‘I read the first half but had to stop when I realised I was losing the will to live’), something shorter and lighter.
I gave a lunchtime talk today to ACEVO (the third sector CEOs’ organisation). When they first asked me they said forty people were coming, then it was nineteen, then twelve and finally eight of us sat down to lamb cutlets or sea bass. Despite the slight collateral damage to the battered Taylor ego (still smarting after being left off the Metro ‘top 6,000 quite intelligent Londoners called Matthew’ list), it was actually quite nice to be in a small group.
I had decided not to make a big speech about 21st century enlightenment but to explore some of the challenges facing the third sector in the long period of austerity ahead. Being in the company of some very impressive leaders I ended up hearing a number of interesting points. One that will stick with me was the charity which sees its major corporate partners not only, or even primarily, as financial donors but as sources of organisational expertise, guidance and support. Rather than seeing the relationship as a way into money, this charity saw the donation as a way into a relationship. This is a thought and indeed an ambition I have had before but it was powerful to hear of it in practice.
Another was a point about collaboration to the effect that the best partnerships often start off being disinterested – just organisations wanting to find out more about, and learn from, each other. It is only later that the opportunities for joint projects and funding bids start to emerge. This contrasts with what has generally been my own experience – shotgun marriages of convenience. It made me think about which third sector organisations and leaders I most admire and whose aims most clearly align with our own, and also realise that I didn’t need to wait for a concrete proposal before suggesting a conversation.
Finally, I also heard about ACEVO’s report on the Big Society, which is being published on Monday. I shan’t break their embargo but from what I was told the report confirms – but this time with proper analysis and evidence – most of the concerns I have been airing on this blog. I hope to write more fully about the report when it is published.
Sport and the Big Society – a new pitch
As Easter approaches perhaps I can be allowed to be even more self-indulgent than usual? I am using today’s post to give vent to a deep frustration and to issue a challenge.
When it comes to the Big Society, kids’ football is an amazing success story. I don’t have the figures to hand (if anyone does, please comment) but I think I recall that on any given weekend more than a million parents are involved in in some way: coaching, organising, giving lifts or just being there to cheer on their offspring. This is in support of an activity which is unambiguously beneficial: improving children’s health, developing their capacity to work in teams, to understand the difference between healthy competition and unacceptable aggression, and to handle success and failure.
Best of all, and again I wish I had the stats to hand, volunteering for kids’ football is not nearly as socially stratified as most other forms of civic engagement; working class and ethnic minority kids and parents are just as likely to get involved.
But there is cloud hanging over the park pitches of England. As austerity bites and as the costs of football rise (kits, pitch fees, ref’s fees, the burden of regulation) many clubs are finding it difficult to survive. Here is one example which has made the news: Senrab– the team which helped develop the skills of John Terry and Sol Campbell – is apparently under threat. Given its famous links and the publicity it has received, Senrab will probably survive but every week many other clubs fold as exhausted enthusiasts give up the ghost.
The big issue here is the amount of money flowing down to community football, and I would be keen to hear from anyone who can comment on that overall picture. But I want to focus on something more specific. One of the problems for tens of thousands of kids’ clubs is not only the cost but the quality of the pitches on which they have to play. After the winter we have had, and now a long dry spell, pitches combine an uneven surface with a high and erratic bounce. It’s like trying to play snooker on corrugated metal. People who don’t play football might think this is all part of the challenge – after all both sides have to cope with a bad pitch and isn’t adjusting part of being a good footballer?
Well, not really. Of course, players have to adapt, especially to different weather conditions. But becoming a skilful player is a lot to do with developing an intuitive ability to judge a pass, predict a bounce and look up from the ball to see options. If the pitch is terrible, it is impossible to develop these skills; good players get demoralised and effectiveness comes down to size and determination rather than skill and intelligence. This is not just bad for the skilful players who get demoralised but for the ones who succeed due to sheer strength only to be exposed if and when they try to play at a higher level. The other problem with standard grass pitches is that they are often simply unplayable. This year my own son’s team played about three games between November and February.
We urgently need thousands more high quality artificial grass pitches. They are always playable and can be played on back to back. Because they can always be used it becomes more economical to install cheap portable floodlights to provide longer playing days in the winter. A collegue here at the RSA contrasts his local town which has four pitches which are all pretty poor and often unplayable with the town in Germany where his girlfriend lives. The German town has a single shared artificial pitch which is played on for ten or eleven hours a day all weekend (and also on some evenings). The one German pitch is not only better but, over the year, provides as much playing time as the four English ones.
The technology of artificial pitches is improving all the time. I met earlier this week with the inspirational CEO of a company called Desso. Pitches are 20% of their business and they are also committed to a cradle to cradle manufacturing process which means pitches get fully recycled when they have reached the end of their lives.
The problem – as it seems to be on so many issues nowadays – is finance. Few, if any, clubs – even if they muck in together – can afford the upfront cost of a pitch. Most pitches wouldn’t anyway be owned by one club, they would need to be managed by a trust which would then cover its costs by hiring fees. The clubs or trust would need a deal whereby they can either lease a pitch or buy it over several years. The risk should be manageable because even if a club goes bust the pitch can be leased or sold on to someone else.
So what we need is easy. An alliance between a bank which is willing to develop a finance package which is simple, and affordable, a supplier of pitches willing to offer a good deal to clubs including support and maintenance (with great sustainability credentials) – judging by the enthusiasm of the CEO, Desso could be such a company, and the FA which would administer the scheme and provide clubs with upfront costs and advice. How about a target of 5,000 more artificial community use pitches by 2015?
As if often the case, this blog is strong on passion but weak on research (comes of being a busy CEO with a butterfly mind). So, there may be an obvious problems with my idea or it might be that there is already some scheme out there just like this. But unless we can enable our youngsters to play football on better surfaces then most of them will not learn the beautiful game but instead – at best – become proficient at kick and run.
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
- Twitter @RSAMatthew
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.