Nat Wei is experiencing something of a buffeting for sensibly deciding that working for the government for free for three days a week creates an imbalance in his responsibilities to provide for his family and ‘have a life’. He can continue to work two days per week for free to promote the Big Society and remains an advocate for the concept.

The Evening Standard covers this story here: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23920428-how-my-top-government-job-left-me-almost-penniless-and-unable-to-support-my-family.do

Nick Hurd, Minister for Civil Society (@minforcivsoc on Twitter) defended him against the ‘silly knocking’ saying that he is a ‘tireless champion of the citizen’ and that he is ‘personally v grateful for the time he gives us’.

I like to see a man stand up for his friends, but I don’t think the knocking is really about Nat Wei. This story just neatly illustrates the underlying problems that afflict the concept of the ‘Big Society’ itself. So I tweeted as much to Nick Hurd and he came back with this challenge: “What don’t you like about concept?”

Fair question. Here’s my 10-point starter:

The ‘Big Society’ is conceptually flawed because:

1)       It fails to recognise local democratic accountability and structures

2)       It shows no understanding of how the existing voluntary sector is funded, supported and intertwined with local government

3)       It overlooks local government’s capacity and intelligence as a commissioner, supporter and enabler of local activism

4)       It pretends that geographical communities are homogenous with shared needs and interests whereas they are in fact fragmented into smaller groups with needs and interests in conflict

5)       For this reason, it privileges the ‘wants’ and ‘demands’ of the already well-resourced, aggressive, organised or time-rich over those whose need may be greater but whose capacity for activism is less

6)       It enshrines a Victorian model of philanthropy which will enable those with time and money to decide which causes are ‘deserving’

7)       It enables a framework of public discourse in which vital public services can disappear and that’s OK because “if you’d really wanted them you’d have got together and saved them”

8)       It insults professionals whose jobs big society advocates don’t understand by implying that they are easy and can be done by others without skills or training

9)       It legitimises public sector redundancies when clearly the roles and responsibilities are not ‘redundant’, big society advocates just want people to work for nothing while cheerfully destabilising families and individuals who work for a living, not a hobby

10)   It is accompanied by cuts which will savage the infrastructure for local voluntarism where it is effective

And for a bonus point: