Don't dismiss Big Society due to cuts, says Curley 1

Finance | Gareth Jones | 9 Dec 2010

Kevin Curley has moved to distance himself from those in the Community Sector Coalition who have criticised the Big Society, saying that Navca members would take the best elements and resist the worst.

His comments follow a meeting held this week by the Coalition, of which Navca is a member, at which several attendees reportedly condemned the Big Society as a “sham” and a threat to community groups.

Speaking to Civil Society, Curley was critical of “disproportionate and unfair” local funding cuts, but praised Community First grants, funding models such as social impact bonds and community shares, new powers for community groups in the Localism Bill and the prospect of more pro bono help from the private sector.

He said: “Navca's members are pragmatists. They lead the local sector in every part of England.

“Local leadership means taking from new government programmes those resources which will help voluntary groups to thrive and resisting those government actions which will damage the local voluntary sector.

“Nobody is helped by dismissing Big Society because of local funding cuts.”

Curley added that Navca is and will remain a member of the Coalition, but that “does not mean we support everything the Coalition says and does”.

Directory: National Association of Voluntary and Community Action
Who's Who: Kevin Curley

Place a comment

Penny Waterhouse
NCIA
13 Dec 2010

hey kevin - mind your language please. "lead the sector in every part of England". what a strange view of how society works. leadership....sector....NAVCA branding....this is the sort of competitive corporate managerial language and notions which has alienated politicians from the public. such hubris is not what we need from you or NAVCA.

at local level there is a cauldron of individuals,groups and connections doing their thing, with their own different viewpoints and in their own ways. mostly with no ear for or help from your members, except to make them fit for government's purpose. we can do without that sort of leadership.

what happens to voluntary groups as a result of cuts is not the point. what's important is what happens to us - local people and communities - and the action of community groups and voluntary action in resisting damage alongside others. its' not for your members to decide what happens locally (or lead as you put it). it's a matter of local democracy, dissent, alliances, negotiations and automony of action - in its many forms.

that's what healthy societies do - they have different points of view, which are acted upon. there are many more varied voices than that of the Big Society Show - and the views of national bodies like yours. let's see NAVCA encourage difference, not close it down - as you have attempted in your recent letter to the Chair of CSC.

and I'm left wondering by your phrase..."nobody is helped by dismissing Big Society because of local cuts". do you know something I don't? cos I can't work out what BS is,let alone who might or might not benefit.

who is going to benefit? national agencies hoping to get a seat at and crumbs from the table? privatised voluntary agencies providing public services under contract to the state?

can't imagine that benefit claimants are going to be helped, nor those on minimum wage, nor the rest of us dependent on deteriorating local services. unless you support a call for "Back to the Poor Laws", aided by mutual aid rather than the welfare state.

can we have a little less pragmatism and a bit more thought about the sort of society we want to live in. and then have a healthy argument about the what and how.

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.