Reviving the Big Society?

This non-idea is little more than an excuse for a lack of welfare policy.

In his Christmas message David Cameron attempted to revive his signature idea: the big society. What this idea might stand for is famously uncertain. Whilst it was part of the Tory strategy in the run up to the election in 2010 and remained part of the political lexicon in the first year or two of the coalition government it had seemed to have slid from grace and been consigned to the bottom draw. The one reserved for ideas that lack sufficient substance to inform any actual policies. Indeed this lack would appear to be the sine qua non of the concept. If the big society means anything it means ‘the public’ — or something that might be described as ‘the public’ — providing what was previously provided by the government. It is not an idea that informs policy as, on the face of it, it would seem to justify the absence policy.

Cameron may have been inspired to recall the idea most associated with his election to Prime Minister precisely because the evidence that the Big Society really exists has grown this winter. One of the stories of 2013 has been the exponential growth of food banks, something many families will have relied on for their Christmas dinner and more will no doubt require their ‘services’ as 2014 unfolds. Those who have donated time, money and produce to food banks may not have done so in order to fulfil the promise of Cameron’s Big Society but, nevertheless, their actions seem to be consistent with it. If we count every Christmas dinner that contained one item of foodstuff donated to a foodbank a victory for Cameron’s big idea it may well be that the Big Society can be resurrected for election in 2015.

Nevertheless, the Tories should beware the temptation this insubstantial sound-bite represents. Whilst the UK’s food banks stand as a testament to the good will of many, the fact of their existence — and the unmet need they represent — should trouble the conscience of us all. The future holds hard choices for welfare spending, not least in the NHS. At some point we may have to decide what constitutes fundamental, basic and universally provided healthcare and what does not. But consider this: is sufficiently food, or sufficient state support to provide a family with enough to eat, a basic or not? Should food be provided universally, to all those who need it, or is it more an added extra, something we might ask Bupa to insure against?

Herein lies the fundamental problem with the Big Society. At its heart it is an appeal for the functions of civil society to be provided by those with a social conscience. But ensuring that the basics are provided is the job of government. Indeed, for those of us who believe in the welfare state, this may well be the primary purpose of government. The welfare state is not — or should not be — a distraction from all those other things the government ought to be doing, they are the very things the government ought to be doing.

The Big Society seems to be about not having concrete policies, not addressing the basic needs and welfare of citizens and, other than a series of cuts, having no explicitly programme for the government of welfare. The advantage is if one has no policies one cannot be held responsible for their costs or their failures. As an idea the Big Society is a by-product of the invisible hand of invisible government. It embodies a laissez fair approach on the part of the Tory’s. Ironically for a party so keen on the notion of responsibility, the Big Society is an attempt to abdicate responsibility for a core part of government. As such two questions occur: if you do not wish to be responsible for government, why seek (re)election? And if they do not wish to be responsible for government, why would we vote for them?