Big Society: Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools

The fools in this case being we the taxpayers.

Several years ago, while our founder was still alive, we wrote of our strategy when dealing with corruption. I hadn't imagined at the time, that we'd be facing the same kind of obstacles in the UK. As The Independent reveals, Big Society has been exposed for misuse of funding.  

"Our social purpose is poverty relief and childcare reform in the former Soviet Union.  Core framework is straightforward: to build bridges of friendship based on common ground for the common good in the former Soviet bloc.  We firmly believe that this "soft power" approach to international relations is inevitably the only solid ground for establishing and building understanding, good will and peace.  We have therefore pursued that strategy from the beginning of P-CED.  In this regard we consider that Peace is our Business. 

 We research and design regional and national programs.  More about these programs are in the "Projects" section.  We continue throughout with advocacy and activism in raising awareness of stakeholders we aim to help: vulnerable children, and people in poverty, first.  

These problems almost always stem from government corruption that was a way of life in the USSR, and remains so to varying degrees.  Hence the overall process of what we do in promoting change inevitably runs into varying degrees of conflict along the way.  Dealing with such things as threats and smears is as much a part of projects as the hope and good will built within communities for standing up to it.  Hope, good will, and improved lives far outweigh the stresses and strains mounted by corrupt government officials, so strife and institutional resistance to change are taken in stride as part of the change process."

What I've written above was influence by our experience in Eastern Europe. 12 years ago our focus had been the Tatars of Ctimea, warning of a crisis that coukd get out of hand.. In response to our development proposal US government had brought $40 million to the table but a deputy finance minister wanted to cut himself a slice.

To avoid being coopted into graft, we'd taken a stand blocking our own proposal on grounds of copyright. The deputy minister had declared that we were not needed, the money wasn't ours and it wasn't our business. He was put straight. by our founder. It was his money, his and every taxpayer in the US who contributes to USAID funding.  

In an interview that followed in 2004, founder Terry Hallman described the impact of his 1996 paper on applying capitalism for social puirpose:  

"At first, the idea seemed heresy - but not for long, simply because it made sense and it didn't step on the toes of any existing enterprises that were in business to enrich relatively few people. None of them were asked to change anything, but it left open the possibility of more forward-thinking people to step in and do business differently. Even now, I am astonished that the idea struck such a deep and sympathetic chord in so many people so quickly - especially in our top business schools, where one might have thought that they were all in it for the money, for personal wealth, with little regard to social benefit or the poorest of the poor."

But there wrere those "in it for the money" . Two Tory fanboys, saw the opportunity to create wealth for themselves . The Intdependent refers to them as part of the "chumocracry" that laid the foundations for Big Society. They wrote a book and little else.

"Talk - action = shit" as Liam Black once put it

It was Liam Black who first jumped this ship this week with a claim that Nesta, in 2010 a public body of which he'd been a trustee, had been forced to fund Big Society to the tune of £480,000.  

As a man who invests so much time in advising others of their failings, one wonders why it took so long to do the right thing, even if it had gone against personal interest?.

In 2010, when Muhammad Yunus was interviewed about social business at the RSA. I heard an interesting question from Ann James who had been involved in a microfinance project in Ukraine and related how most of the money ended up in the hands of mafia . She asked Yunus about he dealt with corruption  The reply was somewhat evasive.

When I wrote my recent open letter to the Lord Mayor of the City of London, I was drawing her attention to how much had been invested in what she describes as Inclusive Capitalism, how lives had been lost in walking what she and other delegates talked.       

It was Martin Luther King Jr. who once said "Our lives begin to end, the day we become silent about things that matter"

Speaking up about abuse and neglect to children was where the social enterprise community didn't want to join us. NGOs were scared for their lives for good reason. They were also scared of losing their donors, should they speak the unspeakable about a place called Torez.

Unsurprisingly it fall on the deaf ears of "business for good" which included The British Council and a Grameen partner called Erste Bank

USAID had dsmissed a call for support in 2008, yet 2 years later were launcbing their own social enterprise initiative in Ukraine with Erste Bamk and The British Council as corporate partners. Notably our primary focus of transitioning children to family homes was omitted.

It takes an extraordimnary level of self service to turn a call for support into a business opportunity for cronies, In that regard our Prime Minister has eclipsed all others. 

It happened last year when David Cameron spoke at conference on social investment praising the application of Social Impact Bonds to transfer chidren from institutions to foster homes.