It has been eight months since the Conservatives launched a vision of a Big Society, with approximately six months before it had a definition, and yet such an admirable vision is beset by a plague of inherent problems. What is the main problem with the ‘Big Society’, apart from the lack of thought that has(n't)gone into it? It is incompatible with their individualist economic ideology and incompatible with their policy of cuts.
The problem for Labour or any opposition is that it is not a bad idea in principle, thus it is hard to attack. The notion of society helping each other out or of volunteering is difficult to knock; ‘through the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone’ can be applied satisfactorily to the Big Society. Although it is a policy of the Conservatives, it is the basis of Labour, thus why it is so difficult to attack in principle. Labour stands for a fairer, freer and safer society, built by stronger communities. The headache for Labour is that it cannot knock the ideal of people working together and helping each other out, Labour cannot criticise the core policy which is simply ‘volunteering’. Any criticism of the Big Society must be aimed at the method and the hypocrisy of it.
Labour’s attitude to the Big Society has to be cautious and constructive criticism, not corrosive cynicism or partisanship. We should endeavour to be part of it – volunteering and helping others is part of the core essence of Labour, it is who we are. We should not sit in the corner and refuse to play like the Conservatives did for thirteen years; the etiquette of opposition is rarely divulged, unlike how to govern. Labour must not fall into the trap of the Conservatives from 1997-2010; we need to be active, productive, constructive, united and positive and realise that we do not need to be in government to make a difference.
But this just shows the complete lack of originality in the idea. There is nothing new in the Big Society. Volunteering may be a new ideal for Conservatives but it is not a new phenomenon. Anyone who is willing to volunteer already does, and volunteer organisations are chronically short staffed. However, it is good to see the Conservatives support the idea of common people owning pubs, piers, local areas, rather reminiscent of the notion of common ownership. Maybe they will support people owning their own factories, industry and means of production next! In fact, the Spectator compares "Cameron's hope that the Big Society will replace Big Government as reminiscent of the old Marxist belief that the state will 'wither away' as a result of victorious socialism. We all know how that turned out. Cameron has a long way to go to convince us that his vision is any less utopian". Cameron is the new Marx?! Wow, bombshell. But again, it shows that the Big Society is nothing new or original, and in many ways is already here in community groups (and the Labour Social Movement - ideally).
However the big criticism of the Big Society is the lack of clarity; the big what? Big income differences? Big waistlines? The Big Society is a PR man’s afterthought. After the election they realised that “we need a big idea to sell”. Even the name suggests very limited thought or creativity has gone into it; ‘New Society’, ‘The People’s Society’ or ‘United Society’ as lame as they are would have been a slight improvement on ‘Big’. They needed a policy; a selling point other than ‘not Labour’ and this was the best they came up with. For thirteen years, all that united or defined the Conservatives was antipathy to Labour. But once they realised they actually need policy in government, and how bashing Labour does not count as policy (try as they might), they needed an idea. It was not like New Labour which had years of planning before entering government or even neo-liberalism which again had years of planning and thought put into it; it was a disagreeable idea but at least it was defined, supported and novel. Furthermore, it fails to unite the Conservatives or inspire anyone. It has little symbolic value and promises nothing new. Evidently very little thought has gone into it.
The hypocrisy in the Big Society is clear. If the Big Society was Cameron’s life mission, his life aim, then what has he personally volunteered for? Let’s take it further and simply ask; does any of the Conservative front bench volunteer? Volunteering and private investment do not need government, so why did they wait? There was a radio interview a few months back with a Conservative front bencher (unfortunately, I forget which one, it was a minor one), and he was talking about the Big Society and how great it is, volunteering and so forth. The interviewer asked, “So, what do you volunteer in”. Silence. “Well, uh...that’s an unfair question...I’m a politician with a full time job (so the Big Society is only for the unemployed? How useful then that there will be so many; except it’s not volunteering if they have no choice) and...uh...church I”. Best bit of radio of 2010, no doubt. But the hypocrisy is deeper than that. One in four charities - voluntary organisations - in the North East is closing due to lack of funds. The Conservatives (allegedly) favour the Big Society, so voluntary organisations (charities), and private investment. There are several millionaires in the Conservative front bench. Would any of them be willing to ‘invest’ their money into these charities? Would any of the millionaires be willing to ‘invest’ or fund Liverpool Hope University? How about any sure start centres? No. It’s hypocrisy. They support private investment but they don’t invest, they support volunteering but they do not volunteer. Simple message; practise what you preach. And yet, if the policy flops it will be the people’s fault for not volunteering, and if it succeeds then Cameron will be all smug.
The lack of funds is an obvious and well trodden flaw to the Big Society. And of course it’s “all Labour’s fault”, even though it’s not. Despite Cameron pledging £200 million to Big Society, the cuts will simply take the rug from under its feet. As simplistic as it sounds; unhappy people do not volunteer, unemployed people are unhappy, unemployment figures are rising and that’s not taking into account the distinct correlation between income inequality and unhappiness in society (‘The Spirit Level’ – read this book). Cuts to Sure Start, libraries, recreation areas and councils; they’re not going to bring people together.
The whole purpose of the Big Society is to roll back the state, but publicly it’s for more freedom and individualism. It seems logical; we cut state interference and people are freer, we cut taxes so people are free to spend their money. It’s the simplistic logic behind Classical/neo-liberalism. What about the freedom from fear (fear of losing one’s job) or the freedom from want? Such an ideology cannot guarantee these freedoms. The whole ideological mantra of ‘less government, more liberty’ derived from Locke, Jefferson and Mill is not self-evident.
Big Society? Big hypocrisy. But its failure is not going to bring down the government (as only a handful seem to support it, and they do not volunteer much; can you picture Cameron or Etonians picking litter without a camera nearby?). It is massively flawed, unoriginal and under-cooked, not to mention under funded and simply masking ideological cuts, and yet the idealism is still admirable. That’s why, paradoxically, we should support the notion of an active community espoused by the Big Society despite opposing the policy overall. Big Society – Big Headache.
No comments:
Post a Comment