1. NAVCA 2006 Debate Professors Paul Palmer and Jenny Harrow

2. Debate 1 “ It’s not the role of the VCS to help government to promote civic engagement”

3. Debate 1 Agree What is ‘civic engagement’ anyway? Why be a ‘lifeboat’ for failed or ambiguous sounding policies? We can’t mend the fractured relations between politicians and voters – that is the politicians’ responsibilities We pay taxes for public services

4. Debate 1 – Agree - cont Too time consuming to do, because open – ended What are the risks to us if we do this badly or it is seen not to work (…yet another ‘community forum’…) We can’t possibly do well at this because we can’t get hold of what it means Even if/where we are well funded to do this by government, it is a Faustian bargain

5. Debate 1 - disagree Anything we can do to ‘keep ourselves on the road’ the better Why would we not want to ‘help government’ – especially if we can show we can do a better job? What is not to like about ‘civic engagement’ anyway – the VCS needs this just as much as government Traditionally this has been our role

6. Debate 1 – Disagree - cont We can redefine ‘civic engagement’ to fit our particular work We are the experts in ‘civic engagement’ anyway, lets make that clear We can make this lively and real – if need be, call government bluff on the realities of ‘civic engagement’

7. Debate 2 The local VCS campaigning activity is compromised by engaging in public service delivery

8. Debate 2 - Agree This buries us in the kinds of detail that stops us thinking and acting more widely Keeping contractual relations in a good state is also time consuming to exclusion of other things Flexibility to respond quickly to new events (e.g. local hospital closure) is limited with contracts to keep going

9. Debate 2 – agree - cont Public services should be delivered by public service bodies; the vcs is being used as a cheap option and being ‘kept busy’ by it Risk that our ‘voice’ will become too narrow if based on our ‘PS’ work If we are ‘just another contractor’ (e.g. with local authority) this changes our relationship with them, when it comes to campaigns

10. Debate 2 – agree - cont A myth that this gives us financial stability to do other things – contracts too tight We’ll find that we are recruiting different kinds of staff expertise, where we do public services work – not necessarily good at campaigning roles?

11. Debate 2 – agree - cont Public Service contracting makes VCS organisations compete with each other – and some must lose… how can we have a united voice on key issues if we have just beaten (or been beaten by) another organisation to a share in the public service funding pot?

12. Debate 2 - Disagree Doing this gets us noticed, and raising our profile is vital to campaigning We’ll really find out at first hand what the needs are We’ll be seen to have even more authority – get taken more seriously if we have been part of the delivery systems

13. Debate 2 – Disagree - cont Public Service delivery by the VCS will be a key element in government/VCS relations for foreseeable future – can’t stand aside from the relationship networks this sets up We need the funds and the security of contracts to subsidise our campaigning side Adds further funds – we would do this anyway

14. Debate 2 – Disagree - cont Why would the VCS not take on public service roles if and where it can do these so much better? What’s to stop us ‘biting the hand that feeds us’? We’ve done it before and governments expect this of us anyway…