comment
Michael Taylor, Editor of the highly-respected North West Business Insider, begins a controversial regular column for enterprising...
Taylor’s take
“Social enterprises can deliver certain public services better than the public sector”
These could and should be exciting times for social enterprises. The scaling back of the state, whatever
you think of it, creates an opportunity to forge a different way of delivering public services, welfare, training and social projects. Instead, there is outright hostility
to the very concept of the Big Society. David Cameron’s vision is being dismissed as a “cover for cuts” and a “gimmick”. Indeed, that very view is shared by half of respondents to a poll in the Independent on Sunday published in mid-February. At an Insider seminar held back in
October, we gathered together a group of interested parties to debate this very point. We had philanthropists, charities, professionals and social enterprises around the table. Now, there is a strongly held view
in private sector circles that the public sector has had it coming for a long time. That “non-jobs”, a bloated bureaucracy and structural ineffi ciencies need to be addressed. It is fi rmly held that local authorities, health service bodies and quangos are wasteful and profl igate.
A millionaire philanthropist like
Martin Ainscough, who made his fortune hiring cranes to construction companies, is determined that his investment – be it of his time or his money – is put to good use. That’s one of the reasons he is backing
the Wigan Lads and Girls Club and the Prince’s Trust, professionally run charities that perform amazing social functions and which operate on overtly commercial grounds. Equally, a social entrepreneur like Fay
Selvan, chief executive of the Big Life Group, is a passionate advocate of the idea that a social enterprise like hers can deliver certain public services better than the public sector. But the diffi culty is getting over the politics of it. Selvan’s fear is that the Big Society is
too closely associated with Cameron and the Conservatives. “There is a diffi culty with the Big
Society that it will become political with a big P. It will be seen as the Conservative government pushing the idea of a smaller state. I think we need to divorce the idea from the civic society. We need to get away from it being a political football. If I was thinking of where we go from here, we need to use this idea to get more people to create a more civic minded society.” Cameron has that sense of mission,
but it won’t be enough. On one level it’s positive to have that
conviction that is shared by many in the social enterprise sector. But the challenge is to either get on with it and do so under the radar of
public and media hostility. Or to develop a new narrative altogether. It may take some time to sink in, but
the fact remains that the public sector needs to shrink. The country can no longer afford a state of the size, scale and scope of the last 15 years. Yet it is unthinkable that a
compassionate country can allow those suffering from social deprivation and poverty to be left alone. And this is why the need for social enterprises is greater than ever. The shift will be in funding. The two
alternatives to the state are for social enterprises to provide a bridge to family trusts and to explore philanthropic sources of funding. They may also need to contribute to a debate on what the Big Society Bank can and should do. It’s not going to be easy, and for
many it will be a departure from a local authority funded comfort zone, but it is essential for the future success of the social enterprise movement.
9
Michael
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20