Bill Hicks and the Big Society

November 5, 2010 by
Filed under: Education Matters, Social Economy 

What do the great American comic, Bill Hicks, and the Big Society have in common? Probably not a great deal but one of Hicks’ gags about the illogic driving so many ‘pro-life’ activists in the US suggests a possible link – in my head in anyway. He asks the question: how committed are pro-lifers to the premise that all life is sacred. His gag goes something like this. It’s the funeral of Joseph, a 95 year old guy, who has lived a ‘full and happy life’. The family of Joseph – solemn but with joy in their hearts – carry him through the graveyard to the burial ground. But the family are greeted by a screaming mob of twenty people. They form a human daisy-chain around the burial site. The mob scream at the family: ‘He’s not allowed in”. The family respond, “but what do you mean, Joseph lived a great, long life, and he passed away in his sleep?” And the mob reply, as quick as a gun shot: “You’re missing the point, we’re pro-life, we love life, the old man’s not allowed in, he’s not ready yet. No one’s allowed to die”.

This issue – the issue of commitment to principles and premises – made me think of the Big Society. Just how committed are the coalition government to the Big Society? Now, this is precisely the kind of question that usually makes me want to poke people in the eye – particularly when it comes out of the mouths of reactionaries, from the left and right, who dismiss it without it even engaging with it.

But it’s a question we need to be asking. Because it’s becoming hard to believe the coalition has really thought through its Big Society policy agenda, or at least, how it fits within its overall policy agenda. The recent polemic (and hyperbole) over cuts to housing benefit and the cap on the maximum amount of housing benefit families can claim, would seem to be a case in point.

According to DWP figures, 21,000 people will be affected by new caps on the amount families can claim for five, four, three, two and one-bedroom properties across the UK. This includes 17,000 in London, the majority of which are out of work. One consequence of this will be large number of people having to relocate because they can no longer afford their rent. This will mean people leaving homes they’ve lived in for a long time, leaving the communities they have been apart of and no longer having the support networks many people depend on.

From the perspective of a government who say they are committed to building the Big Society, this seems a very odd policy decision. The large and extensive literature on social capital by Bob Putnam, David Halpern and others, over the last fifteen years, shows that social trust, co-operation, solidarity and feelings of belonging – the things that bind us together with other people – will be forcibly undermined by families and people having to move and relocate as a direct result of the above changes to housing benefit. The big problem for a government committed to the Big Society is this: a Big Society that is sustainable needs a strong ‘economy of regard’ based on strong relationships of trust, co-operation, solidarity and a shared sense of purpose – the very social norms and relations these housing policies threaten and weaken.

And from the perspective of a government looking to make significant savings to public services – 81billion over the next five years – these housing reforms might even prove to be economically ill-thought through. Why? We know that when people, particularly those most likely to depend on public services, move from one place to another, they not only leave behind their family home, they leave behind the networks of support they have depended upon, which saves the state huge amounts of money. Social care is a good example of this. So the result, we can speculate, might be to increase new demand on public services not reduce existing demand, and thereby reduce the anticipated savings generated by putting a cap on housing benefit.

Perhaps I’ll be proven wrong. I certainly hope so.

Share

Related posts:

  1. Big Society(4): Families, networks, neighbourhoods and communities
  2. Bill McKibben on the “torrent of art” about climate change
  3. Marine Bill: contact your MP
  4. Bill Viola videos God
  5. Big Society(3): shape and size matter

Tags: , ,

Comments

  • Halfman Halfcadillac

    Isn;’t it as ever competing principles in political decision making. The Tories want both but when it comes down to it they much prefer benefit reform…

  • Halfman Halfcadillac

    Isn;’t it as ever competing principles in political decision making. The Tories want both but when it comes down to it they much prefer benefit reform…

  • Nigel

    It’s not illogical, Matthew. It’s another illustration that the Big Society is simply the brand name for the governement’s cost cutting and privatisation programme.

    • Sam Mclean

      Thanks for the post Nigel. I disagree. It’s illogical on the basis that the Coalition Government say they’re committed to BS.

      I think we need to be more nuanced. Peter Oborne looks to be about right when he say’s there is a split in the government over BS. I certainly meet plenty of people working in and around the government who are most certainly commited to the BS.

      The branding thing was also flung at New Labour. But it seems quite clear to me that whether you’re a supporter or detractor, it certainly had a core narrative and strategy and was more than clever branding.

  • Nigel

    It’s not illogical, Matthew. It’s another illustration that the Big Society is simply the brand name for the governement’s cost cutting and privatisation programme.

    • Sam Mclean

      Thanks for the post Nigel. I disagree. It’s illogical on the basis that the Coalition Government say they’re committed to BS.

      I think we need to be more nuanced. Peter Oborne looks to be about right when he say’s there is a split in the government over BS. I certainly meet plenty of people working in and around the government who are most certainly commited to the BS.

      The branding thing was also flung at New Labour. But it seems quite clear to me that whether you’re a supporter or detractor, it certainly had a core narrative and strategy and was more than clever branding.

  • James

    Hello Sam, I don’t understand your argument fully, and I want to.

    You say that if the coalition put a cap on housing benefit this would cause people to a) lose their support networks and b) move, or relocate, because they cannot afford payments on mortgage or rent. If this happens then things that save the state lots of money from these support networks will no longer be in place.

    Ok, I get that so far. Until you say, “So the result… might be to increase new demand on public services not reduce existing demand, and thereby reduce the anticipated savings generated by putting a cap on housing benefit”.

    I don’t see how putting more demand on public services would help any. The government is issuing cuts because of the huge amount of debt we have, fair enough, so they are cutting and everyone has to pay the price, which is fair because debt doesn’t just appear, obviously the collective choices of people in the UK has lead to us being in this situation. So the government has said that they will cut housing benefits, ok, that means people will have to move, ok.

    What’s wrong with that? The people that move can make another support network elsewhere. Perhaps to an area in which they can afford to make payments, and then make new friends in that area, then the government will be saving money by not giving out so many benefits.

    So in your argument, I do not understand how you make the logical conclusion of people losing their support networks, to putting more demand on public services. Personally that doesn’t seem like a good idea, unless the person REALLY REALLY REALLY needs the benefit. Everybody in the country is going to have to learn to cutback, how else are we going to pay back the debt we have?

    Unless you mean that by moving these people, they will inevitably put more demand on the public services because they will have moved. If that’s the case, then it can be avoided, if those people make the right choices, and just deal with the fact that the government is cutting back.

    • Josh W

      You’ve actually hit on a problem that the big-society people will have to face; when people move about a lot, they break links, or (in some ways worse), stretch them over miles digitally without replacing them with new local links. In other words if you want lots of volunteering you need settled networks of people, not a flexible flow of labour.

      If that’s true, then either we need to find ways for people to produce the same vibrancy of economic cooperation within a more settled lifestyle, or a way to speed up people’s relationship forming. I think we need both, as they both seem pretty hard to achieve.

    • Sam Mclean

      Thanks James, and sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

      The logic is clear. Informal care and support that come with social networks reduce demand on public services and save the taxpayer and the economy billions. They also form the foundations of the Big Society.

      Just look at social care. It’s estimated that 6 million people in the UK are ‘informal’ carers, which is said to save the economy £87 billion a year by them doing unpaid work that would otherwise need to be carried out by paid care workers.

      Weakening networks of support has profound social and economic costs. The savings you might make by putting a cap on housing benefit are likely to be lost because public services and the state will have to pick up the cost saved in the past by informal care and support.

      Your idea that you can simply trade in social networks and relationships for new ones like cars or clothing or just create new ones is, frankly, both deluded and normatively wrong.

      Discuss…

  • James

    Hello Sam, I don’t understand your argument fully, and I want to.

    You say that if the coalition put a cap on housing benefit this would cause people to a) lose their support networks and b) move, or relocate, because they cannot afford payments on mortgage or rent. If this happens then things that save the state lots of money from these support networks will no longer be in place.

    Ok, I get that so far. Until you say, “So the result… might be to increase new demand on public services not reduce existing demand, and thereby reduce the anticipated savings generated by putting a cap on housing benefit”.

    I don’t see how putting more demand on public services would help any. The government is issuing cuts because of the huge amount of debt we have, fair enough, so they are cutting and everyone has to pay the price, which is fair because debt doesn’t just appear, obviously the collective choices of people in the UK has lead to us being in this situation. So the government has said that they will cut housing benefits, ok, that means people will have to move, ok.

    What’s wrong with that? The people that move can make another support network elsewhere. Perhaps to an area in which they can afford to make payments, and then make new friends in that area, then the government will be saving money by not giving out so many benefits.

    So in your argument, I do not understand how you make the logical conclusion of people losing their support networks, to putting more demand on public services. Personally that doesn’t seem like a good idea, unless the person REALLY REALLY REALLY needs the benefit. Everybody in the country is going to have to learn to cutback, how else are we going to pay back the debt we have?

    Unless you mean that by moving these people, they will inevitably put more demand on the public services because they will have moved. If that’s the case, then it can be avoided, if those people make the right choices, and just deal with the fact that the government is cutting back.

    • Josh W

      You’ve actually hit on a problem that the big-society people will have to face; when people move about a lot, they break links, or (in some ways worse), stretch them over miles digitally without replacing them with new local links. In other words if you want lots of volunteering you need settled networks of people, not a flexible flow of labour.

      If that’s true, then either we need to find ways for people to produce the same vibrancy of economic cooperation within a more settled lifestyle, or a way to speed up people’s relationship forming. I think we need both, as they both seem pretty hard to achieve.

    • Sam Mclean

      Thanks James, and sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

      The logic is clear. Informal care and support that come with social networks reduce demand on public services and save the taxpayer and the economy billions. They also form the foundations of the Big Society.

      Just look at social care. It’s estimated that 6 million people in the UK are ‘informal’ carers, which is said to save the economy £87 billion a year by them doing unpaid work that would otherwise need to be carried out by paid care workers.

      Weakening networks of support has profound social and economic costs. The savings you might make by putting a cap on housing benefit are likely to be lost because public services and the state will have to pick up the cost saved in the past by informal care and support.

      Your idea that you can simply trade in social networks and relationships for new ones like cars or clothing or just create new ones is, frankly, both deluded and normatively wrong.

      Discuss…