Talk:Big Society/Archive 1

Laurence Godfrey (physics lecturer)
Laurence Godfrey (physics lecturer) has apparently said rude things about the Big Society. Thousands of notable political commentators have also made positive and negative comments. We need to balance the positive and negative, and not highlight someone of marginal notability for something completely different, cited in a blog which is not a WP:RS. NBeale (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, we don't "need to balance the positive and negative", we need to reflect the debate. If there are more negative opinions than positive (or vice-versa) then the article needs to reflect that. In a recent television discussion on BBC4 TV over 70% (I forget the exact number) thought that "the big society" was an empty political slogan. However, I don't think that the article is improved by reporting a few disparaging remarks by Laurence Godfrey; if they were backed up by supporting arguments, they could be included. --TraceyR (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "recent TV discussions on the BBC" aren't a very scientific sample. There was an opinion poll in The Independent which had 50% saying it was just a gimmick and 41% agreeing that "The Government’s Big Society is merely a cover for spending cuts". But the poll was mainly about spending cuts with earlier questions like "The scale of cuts planned is too severe and too fast" and it is well known that if you prime people in this way you will get agreement, so I don't think the poll is particularly meaningful. NBeale (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course not; that's why they're not cited in the article. They do give an indication of the general way in which this 'initiative' has been received, and it's not positive. --TraceyR (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well even in this primed poll we see about 15-20% supporting (depending on the question), 38-50% opposing and 36-36% don't know. NBeale (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so it shows 2.5 times more opposing than supporting. The article should make this clear, not strive for a 'balance'. --TraceyR (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One primed poll is not enough to weight an entire article. Also can we please get rid of this nonsense by Godfrey. As far as political comment is concerned he is a random punter - we might as well cite a comedian. NBeale (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My argument is against insisting on balance, rather than reflecting opinion in reliable sources. IMO the Godfrey sentence contributes nothing to the article. Be bold and delete it! If others object (I shall not), discuss it with them here. --TraceyR (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Cartoon
I don't think that cartoons about a concept belong in this article. They are not remotely a WP:RS - the concept of "fact checking" doesn't apply. There could be some exceptions but just a "random" cartoon from the Guardian doesn't make sense. Are we going to include cartoons lampooning every political figure and concept? NBeale (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * TraceyR says that we use Cartoons in William Hogarth but he was a cartoonist. That is completely different. And here we are using a description of a cartoon which is not notable, unless there is a WP:RS that refers to the cartoon in this context. NBeale (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * eg there are no Cartoons in [Gordon Brown despite having about 2.3M GHits for "Gordon Brown Cartoon". NBeale (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * User:NBeale is still missing the point! The reliable source is neither the cartoon nor the cartoonist, but the newspaper in which it appeared. I hope that you are not implying that the Guardian is not a reliable source! The reference to Hogarth was meant to point you to the fact that cartoons have been for centuries a valid form of political criticism. This cartoon is no exception. The fact that cartoons haven't been used for Gordon Brown is also irrelevant (apart from revealing a possible non-neutral POV). For these reasons I suggest that you refrain from deleting this comment from the Criticism section of the article. Sooner or later the three revert rule will bite you! --TraceyR (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * TraceyR Use of descriptions of cartoons in a serious article is unencyclopedic. Can you show me another comparable article where we have resorted to describing a cartoon in this kind of way? NBeale (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that a precedent is required for everything? Think about this argument. --TraceyR (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously not, but WP:COMMON SENSE is that we don't do something unencyclopedic in an article unless there are very special circumstances about that article which require it to be treated differently from other comparable articles. Tell you what, I'll find a cartoon and put it in another article and see what people say. :-) NBeale (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an excellent idea. Choose another WP article, find a cartoon from a reliable source that addresses the issue and makes a cogent point about the subject, as this one does in this case, and add a reference to it to the article. Nobody should object. In what sense is a comment made in a cartoon "unencyclopaedic" and not "serious"? or are you redefining those words to mean "making a point that I disagree with" and "of the same opinion as me"? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By some strange coincidence, a reference to this very same cartoon (without the link to the Guardian url) appears in the article From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. No objections have been raised. QED? --TraceyR (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

When I put a cartoon into Ed Miliband it stayed for a while, and then 2 editors felt strongly that citing cartoons was inappropriate. We really need to come to a constent position, and it is not Ok to say "cartoons that criticise people we like are bad, but things we dislike are OK" NBeale (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that this just won't wash. Your attempt to generate opinion favourable to your cause backfired at Ed Miliband and misrepresenting the discussion there does not help. You were told to stop there, so why continue here? --TraceyR (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Having been an Editor since July 06 I rather care about Wikipedia - and I think the ad-hoc use of cartoons need to be thought about with some consistency. Maybe you should join the discussion here? NBeale (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I too am a relative newbie here (also only since 2006, with slightly more edits than you, FWIW) - are you trying to suggest that you care more about Wikipedia than I do? Anyway, this isn't about the "ad-hoc use of cartoons". IMO the use of cartoons should be considered on a case-by-case basis - is it relevant to the article, does it make a valid point, is it from a reliable source etc. (see my comment on your RS thread). Trying to get all cartoons banned from Wikipedia is quite a project, but in a way I must admire your tenacity on this issue.  --TraceyR (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I too must bow to the greater wisdom of NBeale, for while I have been editing here since 2004 I am still only an editor with a small e, and therefore not nearly so Grand or Important or Serious. But I agree with his characterisation of this as an ad-hoc use of a cartoon. Referring to the Steve Bell cartoon in this article is precisely ad hoc - i.e. it is suitable "for a particular purpose only" (Collins Dictionary). No wider point about the use of cartoons in general can be assumed, and to attempt to turn it into a grand policy-related issue is merely gaming the system in a pointy way. But to get to the point at issue, may I ask NBeale a specific question? Instead of hiding behind a smokescreen of imaginary WP policy, can you please tell us precisely in what respect it is inappropriate to refer to Steve Bell's cartoon in this particular instance? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is the nature of cartoons that they are ridiculous exaggerations. Even Steve Hill isn't seriously saying that the Big Society is all about greed, any more than Private Eye is seriously saying that Ed Miliband has been stripped to his underwear by his colleagues and written all over. In what other context should be use (intentionally) ridiculous exaggerations on the same basis as serious commentary? (Try to avoid the bias that you don't like "big Society" and (perhaps) do like Miliband. On what reasonable basis is a cartoon lampooning one admissible but not the other? NBeale (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The cartoon as a drawing is indeed a ridiculous exaggeration, but the point it is making, and the way that a Marx quotation is used, is surely not. Of course it's an exaggeration, but it's not a ridiculous one. Do you not have precisely the same objection to the other negative comments quoted in this section of the article - e.g. Riddell's "the sink or swim society is upon us...", or Warner's "chimera ... political epitaph...", or Unite's "smoke and mirrors for an avalanche of privatisation"? All are exaggerating in order to make a point - that's how political comment works. Why pick on the one that happens to be conveyed by means of a cartoon? I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the cartoon of Miliband you refer to, so I can't judge its appropriateness or otherwise in that article. But I think a reference to the Bell cartoon in this article is fully justified. If you think a cartoon of Miliband should be mentioned over there, the place to discuss it is over there, not here. There is no general principle relating to cartoons. It's all covered by WP:RS and other standard policies. SNALWIBMA ( talk - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 23:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary: "The England only scope of Big Soc may be true - but is OR I'm afraid"
User:N Beale has removed the following passage:


 * The Big Society concept applies to domestic policy in England only. These policy areas are devolved in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and are therefore the responsibilities of respectively the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government in those countries of the United Kingdom.

... on the grounds that it breaches WP:OR. Now, while I respect the basic point, it does strike me as WP:Wikilawyering. It is blatantly obvious that Big Society is an England-only project (just look at the pilot projects).

If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then it is a duck. Wikipedia ought to present topics how they are in reality, not how the UK Government mis-represents them by banging on about "Britain" all the time, with the word "England" expunged from all press releases and websites. Mais oui! (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Cameron and other proponents of Big Society would be delighted if the ideas were taken up in other parts of the UK. And of course if they are successful they almost certainly will be. The fact that the 5 pilot projects are all in England certainly doesn't prove that the concept can't apply elsewhere.  But the fact remains that in WikiPedia we can't "present topics how they are in reality" unless we have a WP:RS to support it. And especially in politically contentious matters we have to be very careful about this.  NBeale (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * PS this "walks like a duck" trope is spectacularly untrue. eg it is now clear that there are several genetically distinct species of Orca NBeale (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup
There are some inconsistencies with the edit style being used in this article, specifically regarding quotes. Also, sentence structure seems like it could be improved. I've added a cleanup tag to the article to express my desire for cleanup to this page, should any editor wish to tackle it. Thanks. --Topperfalkon (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OBAMA
The Big Society was actually an Obama policy. He came out with it, during his campaign for the Democratic election seat. He never put it into action, but to claim it's a Tory thing is nonsense.

Cameron nicked it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.156 (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone has had this idea. 129.11.254.139 (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It has been a policy of one Conservative faction for a while actually, or at least existed in a similar form. The supporters of Direct Democracy made the groundwork for the plan. But it is my opinion that BS is a bastard (in the traditional sense) sibling of Direct Democracy... --Topperfalkon (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"'Big Society' Charity Gets Its Funding Axed"
--Mais oui! (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "TimeBank said it would be forced to make drastic staff cuts, scale back its work and perhaps close altogether after being refused a £500,000 grant.", Sky News, 7 March 2011
 * "David Cameron slashes funding for Big Society charity", The Mirror, 8 March 2011

Concise summary required
Can anyone actually say what exactly this thing is? This entire article is written in sterile political speak without any explanation for what the concept is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * The problem is that it is a vague concept with no exact definition other than the sterile political speak you mention (for which, it seems, appropriate sources have been provided). As long as the current government hangs onto the idea it needs to have an article. --TraceyR (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest this:

"Big Society is not an original idea in itself, but a piece of political rhetoric recently employed by the UK conservative party. It basically means "small government". They've used it a lot in speeches, but in all real-terms, state power remains undiminished in the UK. "Big Society" does not apply to cultures outside of the UK, such as the middle east and third world, where the UK government still believes they should interfere heavily in the lives and economic activities of the people."

As the most accurate description, and I'd delete the rest of the article as unnecessary detail.

86.159.81.139 (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Privatisation of the Welfare State
Anna Coote, head of social policy at the New Economics Foundation, recently stated in Dispatches on C4 that the BS is about "privatisation of the Welfare State on a massive scale". The programme reported on the companies which make massive profits by performing the duties outsourced to them by government (central and local), arguing that small local groups and charities (who are supposed to be in the vanguard of the BS) cannot compete with the huge companies, effectively making a mockery of Cameron's BS propaganda. This needs to be worked into the article. --TraceyR (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

'Scottish Conservatives and Lib Dems ignore the Big Society'
--Mais oui! (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/8859/scottish_conservatives_and_lib_dems_ignore_the_big_society

Notes not yet ready for inclusion in the article by User:Bodnotbod
The initiative garnered a sceptical response from commentators of the national press, opposition parties and interest groups (of both the voluntary sector and unions).

Labour's Ed Milliband said the Conservatives were "cynically attempting to dignify its cuts agenda, by dressing up the withdrawal of support with the language of reinvigorating civic society".

The New Economics Foundation's Anna Coote said in the Guardian that "the effect will be a more troubled and diminished society, not a bigger one". The Telegraph's Ed West concluded that "The Big Society can never take off" though places the blame for that on the socialist ideology held by some of the British public. . In The Times, 'Cassandra' wrote " it isn't hard to see what will happen with all these Big Society initiatives. It's all very well to have the bright idea of the locals running their own bus route... bringing everyone together in a marvellous community scheme. And it will all be launched in front of the local press, with a load of happy kids boarding a brightly painted yellow bus, and a few tv cameras if they are lucky. So far so good. The trouble is that running a bus route is a professional job, not for a group of local enthusiasts. How many bets that five years down the line, either the enthusiasm has run out and there is no more bus route..."


 * Er... what do you mean by "not ready to be included"? I shall be reinserting them in future unless you can define what you mean by this. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Circular Argument, possibly by missquote,
The following sentence is a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and illogical.

"Dr. Lorie Charlesworth, an academic from the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies,[31] compared the system to the Old Poor Law, and suggested that "any voluntary system for the relief of poverty is purely mythical".[32]"

The sentence assumes that everyone who ever brought themselves out of poverty did so by help from another group, she possibly means the state. This is impossible, where did these people who are not in poverty originate from, to be able to offer help to others in poverty? Logically someone MUST have brought themselves out of poverty at some point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

She also makes an appeal to authority fallacy, whereby she references a legal source called “the Old Poor Law”, however, as the argument is legal it relies mainly on authority rather than relevant expertise in, for example, economics. Furthermore, no amount of law could ever describe economics without becoming known as economics and leaving its authoritarian positions behind and taking up economic positions which are scientific in nature.

Illogical arguments should be removed or at least highlighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.117.36 (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Article is totally biased. Not npov at all
--Surturz (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * would you care to expand your argument? If not, people will assume that this was drive-by tagging. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would say in support of the tag that the response section seems to consist of entirely negative responses. Nicander (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE - Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". AFAIR the response to the vaguely defined and increasingly forgotten "Big Society" idea was overwhelmingly negative, so the Response section should reflect that. If there are any positive responses to be found, they should be added. Rd232 talk 14:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't it time to remove the "disputed neutrality" tag? --TraceyR (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is very biased and partisan also. The 'Negative' section is given much more prominence than the 'Positive' section and the 'negative' views come from equally biased partisan people. I mean hard-left union militants like Crow and Barber are obviously going to attack the Big Society as they will with anything the Conservatives do. I feel the opinions of those vile and nasty men are worthless on this personally but that doesn't suit WP unfortunately bus still I feel it is very biased. 90.219.162.69 (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If nobody can find anything positive to say about something it doesn't follow that the article is biased. Perhaps there is less positive to say about this policy, if so the article is accurate.46.208.39.18 (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Rowan Williams and Wafflegate
There's a problem with a sentence in the opening paragraph: "It has been described by the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams as 'aspirational waffle designed to conceal a deeply damaging withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities to the most vulnerable'." The problem is that Williams didn't actually write this, although an awful lot of the media say he did. The quote is from Williams' 2012 book Faith in the Public Square, in a chapter called "Big Society - Small world", based on a speech in King's College London on 21 March 2011. The quote gains a lot from a careful framing in context:

"The theme of the Big Society has found its way into a wide range of contexts in the last year or so. Reactions have been varied; but we should not be distracted from recognising that – whatever the detail of rationale and implementation – it represents an extraordinary opportunity.  Introduced during the run-up to the last election as a major political idea for the coming generation, it has suffered from a lack of definition about the means by which ideals can be realised.  And this in turn has bred a degree of cynicism, intensified by the attempt to argue for devolved political and social responsibility at exactly the same time as imposing rapid and extensive reductions in public expenditure.  The result has been that 'Big Society' rhetoric is all too readily heard by many as aspirational waffle designed to conceal a deeply damaging withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities to the most vulnerable. But cynicism is too easy a response and the opportunity is too important to let pass.”

The point Williams is making is merely that the "Big Society" idea has been poorly communicated, and that some see it as waffle. The rest of the chapter shows that he is actually enthusiastic about the idea, although he has worries and questions about some aspects. Williams' view is much better summarised by the following quote: "My concern is that we use this opportunity to the full – and particularly that we do not treat the enthusiasm around some sorts of localism simply as a vehicle for disparaging the state level of action to secure the vulnerable, nationally and internationally."

There is a conflict here between what Williams has said and what the media reported. Of the news organisations I can find online, only the Daily Telegraph managed to get this right: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9352412/Rowan-Williams-Big-Society-is-not-just-aspirational-waffle.html, and, quite amusingly, their headline is the complete opposite of what many others reported: "Rowan Williams: Big Society is not just 'aspirational waffle'".

Compare this with BBC News, "Rowan Williams dismisses Big Society as 'aspirational waffle'", its first paragraph is an incredible perversion of the quotation above: "The Archbishop of Canterbury has dismissed David Cameron's Big Society initiative as "aspirational waffle". Rowan Williams said the idea was "designed to conceal a deeply damaging withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities to the most vulnerable"."

Or the Daily Mail, "Archbishop of Canterbury slams Big Society as a ploy to conceal a 'deeply damaging withdrawal of the state'": "The Archbishop of Canterbury has launched a ferocious attack on David Cameron’s Big Society vision as a cynical ploy to conceal ‘damaging’ cuts.In a controversial intervention, Dr Rowan Williams dismissed the flagship initiative as ‘threadbare’ and ‘aspirational waffle’."

The source cited here, the Guardian is a lot more careful in its language, but the author doesn't seem to have read much beyond the opening paragraphs: "Rowan Williams pours scorn on David Cameron's 'big society': Key policy 'comes across as waffle', says archbishop of Canterbury in valedictory bombshell."

Apologies for a long post, but I thought this was really interesting, and I wasn't going to edit the opening paragraph without consulting anyone. What should be done? Changing this to "Rowan Williams was perceived as attacking the Big Society idea, but wasn't really," doesn't seem newsworthy enough to be put in an opening paragraph.Jdilworth771 (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Inspired by Jesus
Perhaps worth having something on Cameron's statements re. this (I think I've seen one from 2011 as well as the one currently in the press), and people's reactions... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.117.88 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes
I'm concerned about a recent change. The first sentence has been changed, calling Big Society an "ideology". Previously it was called a "policy". A new source has been provided too. However, both the old and new sources call it a policy, not an ideology. Why? bobrayner (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting point Bob. There are many sources that refer to it as an ideology. Patrick Butler writing in the Guardian (quoting Paul Twivy) calls it an ideology (Cameron's 'big society' undermined by cuts and distrust, says study). In the same newspaper Bernard Collier writes that "big society means 'big ideology'" (The big hole in 'big society'). Writing in the Community Development Journal, matthew Scott calls the Big Society "an ideology which pretends it is not one" (Reflections on ‘The Big Society’). Andrew Heywood writing in Politics Cymru says that "the Big Society is the most significant ideological theme to have emerged within the UK Conservative Party in recent years" (Conservatism Reinvented?). Judy Atkins of the LSE refers to the Big Society's "ideological underpinnings" (Mending “Broken Britain”: From the Respect Agenda to the Big Society), while Alan Walker and Steve Corbett discuss its "ideological roots" (The Big Society: A Critical Perspective). For Civitas, Aoife O'Donnell calls it an ideology (BIG Society). There are many more such examples.


 * A number of these sources are already quoted in the article at different points. It would be possible to put a reference by the word "ideology" citing its use if that would be helpful.


 * The Wikipedia definition of ideology includes "ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions", "a way of looking at things, as argued in several philosophical tendencies", and "a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society". All of these would seem to me to be applicable to the Big Society.

Polly Tunnel (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Big Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110726123445/http://thirdsector.co.uk/news/Article/1004121/Coalition-outlines-plans-big-society-programme/ to http://thirdsector.co.uk/news/Article/1004121/Coalition-outlines-plans-big-society-programme/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 11:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Big Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120714070101/http://www.conservatives.com:80/News/Speeches/2009/11/David_Cameron_The_Big_Society.aspx to http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/11/David_Cameron_The_Big_Society.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 05:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)