In particular, Cameron bravely singled out the two core critiques of the big society. That it is a, ‘cover for the cuts,’ and that ‘voluntary bodies are being starved of state money’ which will undermine the big society. Cameron answered these criticisms saying, “I was talking about social responsibility long before the cuts. Building a stronger, bigger society is something we should try and do whether spending is going up or down”. Addressing the issue of voluntary sector cuts he asked people to,

“look beyond the headlines and see a much bigger structural change in how the voluntary sector can work in future. We are in the process of opening up billions of pounds’ worth of government contracts so charities and social enterprises can compete for the first time”.

Fair enough, and this is all true and to an extent convincing. However, it avoids the most important issue: what we do right now? It is already clear that some council cuts are undermining existing big society capacity in their areas, potentially irreparably. It’s hard to imagine the voluntary sector taking advantage of the new, more open service grants in the future when they’re already on their knees.

We put this question to David Cameron today at a Big Society Network event[2]. His response was ‘we’re just taking spending back to 2007 levels’. This maybe the case in terms of top-line budgets but it is absolutely not the case in terms of the core ‘big society’ capacity, which is often seen as a politically low-risk cut. With many voluntary organisations going out of business or losing more than half of their funds it feels more like going back to 1907, than 2007 spending.

Cameron and his team must openly recognise the reality of the cuts, the associated pain and the inherent risks of devastating the sector that supports the big society, and on the basis of a grounded commitment rather than blind optimism, invite others in to shape the vision and lead the big society. For example, it must acknowledge that some councils are cutting voluntary sector grants due to perceived political or managerial expediency, and that this may undermine the big society project.

This kind of approach is already happening in some enlightened councils such as Sutton and Lambeth, and at the national level the OurSociety group are having a good go at providing some effective collective leadership where the government has so far failed.

Supporting localism does not mean that you never comment on what other parts of government do, it just means you don’t order them what to do. Leadership in these times of uncertainty requires some clarity and detail of what is and what isn’t going to help foster the big society today, not just in the future. We need Cameron to step up to this challenge. He must help guide all parts of British government now, when they need it most. This is not the same as being statist.

David Cameron seems to have a particular gift for big tent politics; he needs to adopt the same approach to the big society, whilst applying to building the big society the same missionary zeal his government has for reducing the deficit – the challenge is just as hard, probably harder.

If this happens, the big society project may still have life left in it. Though I suspect this will not be the last time Cameron will have to come to its rescue.

[1] ‘Big Society’ changed to ‘big society’ in Cameron’s Observer article. As the pro-noun became an adjective, it seems to have signalled that the brand is being decoupled from the concept – perhaps this is more inclusive?

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12450872

picture credits – http://www.flickr.com/photos/opendemocracy/523438942

I’d been dipping into the now infamous #bigsociety deluge, caught somewhere between the rapids of posts by Sociability and @NatWei, when I realised something about group dynamics, which may be hampering our attempts to co-create a ‘big’, ‘good’ or simply ‘our’ society. And it’s about basic human relationships, and the dynamics which naturally arise between people.

While we each have our predilections – enthusiastic or cautious, ideas or evidence based – we are hugely affected by the interactions around us. Even if we are naturally enthusiastic, inspired by blank canvases and ideas, we may find the need to ‘balance’ a conversation if we feel it’s become too aspirational. Too ungrounded.

I know the experience well. In the charity I used to lead, I was thought to be the ideas person. Everyone pegged me as the ‘dreamer’. What I knew well was that the rest of the organisation would see it as their role to ground me, bring me down to earth. I knew this, and I let them. It made for good and balanced decision-making.

I now find myself in an organisation with a co-director who I work very well with. He is, in general, more aspirational than me. Now it’s me who spends my time bringing us ‘back to reality’, airing caution, balancing and probing for evidence. Initially it was quite uncomfortable, but after a while I got used to it and I think it works well.

‘What has all this to do with a national policy debate?’ I rightly hear you ask.

The national conversation around the Big Society, since it erupted last year, has been a fascinating and very valuable one. Once many of us got over an initial scepticism, there was a great deal of excitement and optimism about both the aspirations of the conversation, and its open nature. We seem to be entering a risky phase now with increasing voices calling for its clarification, and signs of the economic recovery creaking.

Since its start, and more so recently, it seems that the number of contributions raising caution, concerns, and even negativity is growing. Many of these come from thoughtful and normally very positive people whose entire lives’ work has been contributing towards what they would all describe as a ‘big, better, balanced’ society. Why is this?

I think it’s because of what seems to be quite partial and ungrounded communications coming from government, and those close to government sources. Communications which are aspirational and exceptionally well-meaning, but in the eyes of many not grounded in the reality of the challenges we now face.

These are not just the huge financial challenges. These are the thorny and complex challenges of inspiring, engaging, facilitating and galvanising diverse communities to get involved in the world around them – for their own benefit and the benefit of others. These challenges are struggled with on a day to day basis by many – systemic and cultural. I’ve done my fair share of struggling – with desperate failure and wonderful success. I know it’s worth it, but a struggle is what it often is.

So when the Big Society is framed by government in purely aspirational terms, without recognising the inherent challenges and uncertainties, many of those engaged in this struggle feel the natural need to balance the dialogue with caution and more grounded contribution. Which can be seen as negativity.

While this is natural, it’s also a big problem in my opinion. The government has issued a challenge to the sector and to society, to co-create the big / good / our society. To do this, those inspired by the notion need to feel positive themselves; particularly as the cuts will bite so hard in the sector many of them are connected to. Attacks naturally lead to defensiveness.

No matter how tangible we get about defining what the Big Society is in practice, as Matthew Taylor and others have called for, the blank canvas at least, particularly at a local level, will hopefully remain. We therefore need a more balanced communication from government sources, grounded in both the challenges and the inherent uncertainties in the Big Society conversation, with a continued call to those interested to not only keep contributing, but keep co-creating it.

I think this more grounded communication will lead to a more genuine dialogue, enabling us to ask important questions and challenge assumptions. It’s not a change in direction and requires no extra money, but will free those inspired to take up their natural positions of visionaries, dreamers and co-creators.

Because an obvious point is that the one resource which is worth far more than money, political support or lack of bureaucracy, is people – their inspiration and motivation. And we badly need it right now to help tackle the challenges and work towards the vision many of us hold in common.

– picture credits to: http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_dec2006/RedneckSeeSaw.htm

The book describes how tough times in life can be critically important in helping us grow. But Moore is not playing the self-help airport unit-shifter game, oh no. He explains that many don’t recover from their dark nights and that no one leaves a dark night unscathed. As you can imagine, this wasn’t exactly the stocking filler distraction I’d hoped for. I’d asked for the complete Peanuts 75-77 (I was born in 76), and Moore has good prose, but Shultz gets more laughs. And this Christmas we needed laughs. But Moore had touched a nerve and I was hooked.

Moore goes on to explain how dark nights are seen as essential rites of passage in many ancient traditions – as moments of transformation. Just as the body of the caterpillar collapses during its transformation into a butterfly, so we as individuals and as a society need to rest (though perhaps not collapse) whilst the transformation takes place.

And you’ve got to admit we could do with a bit of transformation round here. As Matthew Taylor brilliantly illustrates in his 21^st Century Enlightenment video most pillars of the modern world are underperforming. The market, science and our bureaucracies are stretched to breaking point, by the credit crunch, climate change and increased pressure on services among much else. But whereas the caterpillar has a cocoon, where is our safe place, our sanctuary to protect us as we go through the vulnerable stages of transformation? It seems that with our embrace of the market, science and bureaucracies we may have lost our facilities for transformation. A dark night is upon us – but we don’t really know how to handle it.

I was prompted to write this piece earlier in the week after coming back from yet another government office where many of the staff had received notices of threat of redundancy that morning. One woman I spoke to had been there her entire working life, was clearly brilliant and loved her job, which as far as I could tell was vital for the community. I do hope she keeps it. But more importantly, I hope she keeps her positive spirit. If she is made redundant, that’s what will see her through and help her adapt to a very competitive job market.

Some well intentioned but undiplomatic words have been written about how the recession could create the time to fuel the Big Society, through unemployment-fuelled volunteering. Although I for one am guilty of working too much and helping out too little, we all need jobs and money. It’s non-negotiable.

But transformation is also non-negotiable, be it child to adult, single to relationship or through a career change, and now in our current situation. I do believe in the vision of the Big Society, but it is a big ask, and combined with the cuts there’s a lot of transformation required. Do we have it in us?

This dark night is offering us a unique opportunity to recalibrate how we live. Making simple changes like switching to a 4 day week is a real option for many. We’d each have less cash, but more time, more time with our kids, in the park, in bed, maybe even volunteering. It could even be a chance for some of us to take stock and refocus on what’s really important, a career change or a lifestyle shift. These chances are once a generation: we’ve got to take it. Our lives literally depend on it.

But all of this is contingent on resting in the cocoon. Entering that place of transformation, that space for reflection. Resisting that desperate impulse to move on, to force the next policy or personal habit. Resting in uncertainty, in discomfort, and trusting that when the time comes the cocoon will break and clarity will re-emerge. A new view, not unscathed, but perhaps clearer, healthier, deeper even.

If we want to opt out of turbo capitalism we must realise that our time squeezed lives need to become more spacious, to allow new possibilities to emerge. It may not be so much that we should do something new, but rather, in the words of Thomas Moore, ‘do less and create the space for transformation to emerge’.

The approaches to public engagement with science are developing quickly, but with significant variations between different countries, often apparently reflecting the different organisational and political cultures in each country. We recently compared this practice, on behalf of Sciencewise, in eight developed countries including the UK, focusing on some key aspects of dialogue and engagement at the national level. You can find the report here.

One of the key findings was that, despite increasing calls for more public involvement, science engagement is still very much seen as a ‘niche’ field of activity in many countries, rather than a standard and systematic part of scientific research and decision-making. While some countries seem to do better than others, especially in terms of the linkages between public dialogue on scientific issues and the political system, a key question is: how can we learn from all of this in order to genuinely and effectively democratise science, across national boundaries?

Although many of the deep-rooted political and cultural traditions underlying science policy-making cannot be changed overnight, we believe that creating an international ‘science transparency index’ would be a helpful first step in the right direction. By assessing and comparing how different countries fare in areas such as the transparency of their scientific system, the opportunities for people to be consulted, or the political attitudes towards public involvement, such an index would enable us to:

• More systematically explore and understand what constitutes a ‘good way’ of doing science, and its link to healthy democracy
• Make explicit the hidden interests and assumptions that are embedded in current processes of scientific development and research
• Study the different approaches to engaging the general public on science and technology, and the factors underlying these differences
• Take an international focus, more closely reflecting the way that scientific development and especially its societal, ethical, economic and environmental impacts are rarely confined by state boundaries
• Encourage mutual learning as well as competition between countries in the field of science engagement that would help to accelerate innovation and good practice.

The comparative metrics used in our report (on page 12) can form a useful starting point, but the index would mainly be developed through an open and ‘living’ process, based on the constructive input and interaction of a range of relevant and interested actors from across the globe. It would help to depict the rich tapestry of science engagement and dialogue internationally and provide an interesting basis for further analysis; but also contribute to the wider debate about whether, why and how modern science can and should be democratised.

We will be building on some of these ideas in future blog posts, so watch this space. We also welcome any thoughts or comments you might have.

- Picture credits to: http://www.regmovies.com/cinemas/TikahtnuCommonsStadium16_STAGE1.aspx

Why is this? What’s really changed? Well of course, it’s the economy, stupid. Economic necessity is forcing the public sector to be radical. But the trajectory of that radicalism is being guided by the Big Society vision and its associated policies such as the Localism Bill and the Giving Green paper. So in effect, the Big Society is channelling much of the radical thinking into my territory – and having a big impact.

Many have argued that the Big Society is a fig leaf for the cuts, dressing them up as  positive social engineering. Others have responded, saying that Cameron and his team are long standing big society believers. Both are clearly true.

At izwe we’ve been doing some work on the interplay between the cuts and the big society, and the potential consequences. A product of this thinking has been the simple Venn diagram below. The diagram illustrates that whether you think the Big Society is a fig leaf for the cuts or a carrot for government reform, this interplay is creating powerful pressures to deliver in areas such as service innovation and co-production; approaches that have tended to perform better in think tank pamphlets than on city streets.

The diagram helps us to distinguish between what needs to happen purely because of the cuts, what are purely Big Society initiatives, and where the Big Society vision provides opportunities for greater efficiencies and decentralisation.

It is those activities in the overlapping central space which are likely to form the core foundations of any lasting local Big Society strategies. This is where core service delivery and Big Society come together, making Big Society activities part of essential services, not optional extras. This diagram therefore also helps an organisation prioritise, critical during a period of intense budgetary pressure.

So far we’ve identified the following activities in this central space:

• Service innovation & co-production
• New forms of more efficient engagement for better relationships, legitimacy and bottom-up innovation (what we call third generation engagement)
• Use of ICT especially social media for enhanced feedback & relationships
• Internal cultural change & skills development involving public sector staff, elected members and community organisations.

There will be others that we have missed please let us know.

We think this can be distilled in to a simple four-step plan for your Big Society strategy:

• • 1. Create your own vision and empower your people to pursue it
  • 2. Identify those internal and external leaders with willingness and ability to drive the vision forward
  • 3. Share information internally and externally to learn from others
  • 4. Map all assets (from hard e.g. buildings to soft e.g. brand and trust) and think creatively about how to maximise benefits from them.

And probably more important than the steps we’ve identified are some useful principles underpinning any approach:

Don’t worry about involving everyone in everything: A key trap of the Big Society is assuming that everyone has an equal voice on everything. It’s not the case we all have expertise and enthusiasm in different areas.

Embrace the diversity and uncertainty: effective change is very often not simply the product of clear plans – but flexible processes that embrace new ideas and the unexpected.

To be truly innovative, the changes required are too great to centrally control: relying on people and their innovative potential in every area will unleash far more potential than a centrally controlled implementation plan. It does require real leadership, requiring real transparency and vision.

Be transparent, but not just with data: naming difficulties and uncertainties, in the context of a clear and aspirational long-term vision, will be vital to get the best of people. Validate their concerns and insecurities by demonstrating your own vulnerability, while holding to inspiration, determination and trust.

Create conditions that support and allow change: this could be ensuring the senior staff are on board or setting expectations that there will be some diversity and uncertainty and that’s a good thing.

Good luck and we look forward to hearing and learning from how you get on.

– picture credits to: http://www.flickr.com/photos/extrajection/2862164735/

Localism is an ideology that has a lot of clout. It represents the values of community, diversity and devolved power which are gaining in public and political support. But is the localism bill actually likely to bring a genuine move towards stronger and more powerful communities at all? Will its loftiness and lack of detail cause confusion instead of action as it did with the Big Society? Will its exciting promises turn out to be unachievable because of the cuts? Will its core principles be undermined as the argument that it represents another fig-leaf for the cuts takes centre stage in the debate? Worse still, is it a fig-leaf for the cuts?

The murmurs of discontent on the blogosphere and in the media, as well as the highly publicised derision of the bill by Labour MP Chris Williamson as the NIMBY’s charter, suggest that it is not being understood as a serious move towards localism. The thousands attending the anti-cuts marches in Nottingham and Gloucester recently as well as the on-going student protests all indicate that localism and the bill itself are not really going to get much press. The fact that its publication has been delayed by “parliamentary congestion” creates a doubt that this is the good, honest move towards localism I was hoping for; it’s certainly not a priority.

If you look at the outlines of the localism bill published so far by Number 10, they’re quite clear on what is going to be abolished. They also boldly state that local government and local people will get more power and autonomy. What the bill, as published so far, is not so clear on is what systems and funding are going to be put in place to fill the void of what will be abolished or support people to make changes. Political commentator Julian Dobson highlights well quite how unhelpful local power and ‘rights’ are for communities without money or legislation to help them counteract market forces.

For localism to really work there will need to be systems and funding to support the transition. The tick list at the beginning of this article won’t be realised just because some institutional barriers and structures are taken away and because somebody says it will. The practical barriers caused by lack of time, power, energy, knowledge, money and leadership will inevitably create obstacles that will need to be addressed, even more so for the most deprived areas. The RTPI have already issued their concerns on this point and furthermore they fear that the proposed removal of regional planning systems, without investment into the skills and infrastructure needed to build new stronger ones locally, could not only prevent localism but actually impede national economic growth and recovery.

It could be that the delayed release of the bill has been caused by government ensuring that it is not an additional blank canvas, but a well thought-out proposal that actually grants local people the opportunities and the resources they need to power the changes they want. I hope so.

There is a lot of noise and discontent at the moment, and if the government wants this bill to be taken seriously, to genuinely be about – and most importantly to inspire – localism, they will have to make sure that some clear plans for implementation and support are in place. Among the public and local government there is little more energy for slashing and burning. We need guidance or support or resources, or even better all three. If the bill doesn’t have this, we are highly likely be a nation of local communities; we will be a nation of dying communities.

By Rachel Aveyard

This is a change that requires a radical shift in how societal roles and services are imagined, planned and delivered. And such a big shift naturally needs strong leadership. This leadership is needed to inspire the necessary culture change as well as to break down structural barriers such as lack of funding or start up capital, monopoly interests and unequal power and skills distribution – among others.

And so we find ourselves with a confusing contradiction. One which leaves us all asking, what exactly is the role of leadership in the Big Society? Who should be leading it? How? This is especially true given the vision of the Big Society as the overall sum of different projects from different places led by different people.

It is this leadership befuddlement which is stagnating Big Society momentum, preventing those already building and leading in their communities from engaging with the vision of the Big Society that they could be owning.  We need only look to recent statistics[1] to see those who were traditionally the drivers and enthusiasts of a bigger society now doubt its very possibility.

There is also some concern that government and key advisors will pitch their role wrongly. Cameron’s famous statement that he wants “the Big Society to be one of his greatest legacies”, in addition to the elusiveness of other Big Society “authorities,” has already drawn borders where there should be territory for others to claim.

If we want a bigger society, we need to find new ways of leading and new ways of understanding leadership. It needs to be transformative, facilitative and empowering – following where others go and supportive of diverse initiatives.

Leadership in a bigger society has multiple levels: leaders who drive its ideology, those that have innovative ideas, those that coordinate its delivery, those that set up projects or initiatives, those who act in their community and many others.

However, these levels should not be hierarchies. Hierarchies, like they always have, are likely to create power struggles which take away fundamentally from what the Big Society is all about. If we are to work together for a common purpose outside of the structures we have previously built to do this, we need to seriously consider the power distribution between these structures. But more importantly, we have to actively break down the hierarchies that have become institutionalised by the way we have governed for centuries.

New forms of dispersed communication, citizen journalism and internet-enabled collaboration mean the opportunities for more ‘facilitative’ leadership to spring organically are ever increasing. It’s great to see the @Big Society Network tweet to the world about projects they’ve found inspiring. Blogs provide people with a voice, the opportunity to become thought-leaders in a way that values knowledge and inspirational quality over position. Social networking tools provide the potential to circumnavigate hierarchies and facilitate action when and where people want to, as the 1000s demonstrating across the UK against tax evasion at the end of last month clearly demonstrated.

But this is just the start. To end up with a truly bigger society, that values new types of leaders at all levels who inspire, transform, support and do, there needs to be a tangible as well as symbolic redistribution of power and authority. We need to embed the spaces and structures that recognise people everywhere as equal agents, drivers and leaders. After all, “It is said of a good leader, that when the work is done, the aim fulfilled, the people will say, ‘We did this ourselves’.”

By Rachel Aveyard

We are in the midst of a local democratic revolution. In a pre-emptive attempt to ‘manage’ the political fallout from the slashing of local government budgets, well over 100 councils are now offering consultations on their budgets.

These consultations come in many shapes and sizes, from simple surveys to the Redbridge LBC ‘You Choose’ budget simulator, which uses a graphical tool to present trade-offs, and Devon County Council’s impressive ‘Tough Choices’ website, which gets the community to think through and propose solutions to funding gaps.

Like it or not, this is a flowering of local democracy. But are we sowing the seeds for the kind of innovative and responsive local government we will need to overcome the huge hurdle represented by the cuts?

Phil Teece, director of the CLG-funded Participatory Budgeting Unit, which supports local government to deliver participatory budgeting (PB), is sceptical. “Many budget consultations do nothing on their own to increase transparency and accountability, nothing to build community cohesion and nothing to hand over responsibility for deciding how public money is spent to local people. And that means they’re not PB,” he says.

Susan Ritchie, now at the Home Office, was involved with the celebrated Tower Hamlets ‘You Decide!’ project in 2009, in which residents allocated £2.4M. She says that “when you get PB right, its benefits for community-building are profound.”

There are, however, fears that current budget consultations are failing to transform the relationship between government and citizens. In fact, there are suggestions that some budget simulators may be damaging. Vince Howe, who ran the high-profile Newcastle participatory budgeting programme, explains that “such superficial processes that do not even attempt to create community or support meaningful discussion are likely to divide communities.”

But is it realistic for citizens to have a direct say over budget allocation? Isn’t that the role of councillors? Clearly we need a way of fusing the energy in budget consultations we are seeing with the community-building power of participatory budgeting.

To do this we must attach social networking systems, both online and actual, that can support sustainable communities, to online budget consultations. Communities that can plug the big gaps in our public services. Communities of government officials and residents who will foster the innovation we badly need. But most of all stronger communities that better understand one another, give government the licence to take risks and people the best possible chance of adapting to the new world we all face.

This is important as we know that strong communities are vital when trying to deliver myriad services such as recycling, social care and street cleaning. In simple economic terms these services are harder and more expensive to deliver in weaker communities. Strong, diverse communities can even help to stop extreme acts such as violent crime and terrorism. So the political case for investing in our communities is stronger now than ever.

But that’s not the argument I want to make today. The argument I want to make is far more important, and goes to the heart of what it means to be human and what it means to be happy.

I argue that being part of a geographically specific community plugs into our innate human desire to belong, to feel safe and secure.

We all know how difficult it can be to ask a stranger for directions, plucking up the courage to admit we’re ‘not local’ or a ‘tourist’; and the deep sense of relief when that person responds in a friendly fashion giving us the information we need, ideally with some extra ‘local knowledge’. We also know how draining and sometimes infuriating it can be when they don’t know, don’t respond because they’re on their mobile, or are simply too busy to give us their time. The incident of the stranger asking questions is a microcosm of Britain today. We are busier, more mobile and with a higher dependency on technology than ever before. And the ironic thing is that as closely as we can identify with the struggling stranger, we can also identify with the busy commuter. We are all busy. And we all sometimes need the help of others.

Time poverty, technology and high levels of mobility have contributed to parts of Britain, especially our big cities and their suburbs, having low social capital and people feeling isolated.

There is evidence that this feeling of ‘disconnection’ contributes towards people voting for extremist parties, depression, violent crime and low-level crime such as vandalism.

Charlie Mansell from the Campaign Company argues that “the surge in voting we saw at last years European elections for extremist parties – was not always linked to racial issues. Sometimes it was more closely linked to anger and strong perceptions of unfairness at things like no longer being able to secure a tenancy or afford to live in the area where you grew up and your family lived; or a poorly articulated sense of community isolation. It’s what you might best call a cry for community and belonging.” It’s clear therefore that we need to act to create stronger communities not just because it’s essential for an effective and efficient government, but because being part of stable communities makes us happier as we then feel like we belong.

Insights such as these need to be at the forefront of the government’s thinking when introducing measures such as the housing benefit cuts announced as part of the Spending Review. The reforms may not lead to ‘Kosovo-style social cleansing’ driving out the poor from our city centres, as suggested by Boris Johnson, but they will make Britain more, not less, transient. This is a problem for the Big Society, and for us as people in need of community.

All such measures need to be considered against a Big Society Bottom Line which ensures that in the rush to cut, we don’t undermine our communities, which provide the bedrock of the government’s reform agenda and the foundations of our personal wellbeing.

The genius of this young government so far has been to tie a values based vision to the cuts. And that vision is the Big Society. There has been a lot of debate about the Big Society being undermined by the cuts, being seen by many as a fig leaf for excessive cost cutting. The debate in France, on the contrary, centres around how far cuts can bring about meaningful reform without a Big Societyesque vision. In France this lack of vision is creating a lot of anger from all sides.

So is the Big Society a fig leaf? Or not? Will the cuts be made in such a way as to radically reform how we behave as citizens and strengthen our communities? Or not?

It is clear that this administration has learnt from the Blair government, not wasting the initial ‘honeymoon’ period, but instead being bold right from the start.  Hence the radical spending review we saw a couple of weeks ago. But in the dash to capitalise on novelty, it certainly feels to any interested onlooker that reform is playing second fiddle to cuts.

How else do you explain last weeks embarrassing intervention from Boris, or the even more recent clash^[1] between Osborne and IDS on child benefits? It smacks of a government (or an individual) prioritising cuts over reform.

There is already a frosty relationship developing between Number 10 and the Treasury on precisely this issue,^[2] with Cameron desperately trying to force Osborne to tie the cuts to reform; and we’re only 5 months in. That beats Blair and Brown.

If Cameron is to allay the fears of his party and the public that the cuts will not lead to genuine reform, he needs a mechanism to do so demonstrably, inside and outside of government.

In that spirit I recommend a ‘Big Society Bottom Line’ – borrowed directly from the triple bottom line, where responsible organisations value people, planet and profit. This is not a woolly eco proposition but is the basis for the UN standard for urban and community accounting and has been adopted by various leading companies such as Starbucks and HP.

Creating a ‘Big Society Bottom Line’ which explicitly accounted for the impact on people, planet and profit would demonstrate that this prime minister is making ‘compassionate conservatism’ a reality. Making good on his Big Society and green credentials, which is after all what made them electable to many for the first time in over a decade. It would also create a transparent mechanism for the public and the press to measure and scrutinise his progress and a tool to ensure that departments (especially the Treasury) are delivering the reform needed to ensure that the current pain, will lead to long term gain. And without such a measure?  Well tighten the shutters everyone, the scary party is back. And, it’s serious.

^[2] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f7f3fdce-c4dd-11df-9134-00144feab49a.html