Filter By

Big Society, Great Society?

ResPublica Fellow Jules Peck asks how progressive this Big Idea is?

Like so many people, I am trying to work out three things. How progressive is our new Prime Minister, how do his values fit with the (somewhat rightish) Lib Dems in his Cabinet and what on earth is the Big Society all about. Is it just me who wonders at the coincidence that ‘Big Society' is such a similar name to Liberal Democrat Lyndon Johnson's (and partly JFK's) Great Society program? Coincidence? Indeed Cameron invoked JFK on launching the Big Society.

And on many other occasions in his progressive past Cameron quoted JFK in suggesting we need to tilt towards a wellbeing economics. Is this showing how liberal (socially not economically neo-liberally) Cameron is? Is it showing he fancies himself as a bit of a looker and man about town, a JFK of our times? Or does it mean we can hope for true renewal of what it means to be Conservative? And a Compassionate Civic Communitarian Cameroon?

It's certainly the most interesting new narrative to come out of UK politics for a long time. And good for Cameron for keeping going with it despite the fact that it fell flat on voters' doorsteps. We know that Conservatives are not keen on ideology. And indeed the last Conservative ideology almost killed the party. But arguably that was because that ideology (Thatcherite no-society neoliberalism) was not fit for our times. But my hunch is that citizens are thirsty for a new narrative and vision if it's empowering and well communicated enough.

The true nature of the Big Idea – sorry Big Society – is yet to emerge but let's hope David Davis is wrong to be so cynical.

Since first saying the idea was ‘hollow', the Deputy PM now think's it's the perfect example of the ‘liberal society'. Let's hope it's more liberal on the social side than the economics as it's so far missing any real analysis of the clear failure of free-market neoliberalism. It's also missing the Oakeshottian concept of the role of the ‘ship of state' in intervention to deal with economic ‘maladjustments.'

Currently it suggests far too much assumption that ‘too much Government' is the cause of broken-Britain. It's intellectually poor if it's dogmatically blind to the responsibility of the Casino-Capitalism religion, laissez-faire economics and badly set-up markets. But I guess it's an idea in the forming.

I suspect a ‘Big Society' will not work without government intervening significantly, if only to undo the problems caused by previous governments. As Will Hutton has said, “the state is not the enemy. Deployed correctly it is our friend. A few Red Tories have got this message.”

Can we expect the Big Society to rise to the challenges of our times? Let's hope so for all our sakes.

Comments on: Big Society, Great Society?

Gravatar Wolfgang Tohme 09 June 2011
The Big Society says the Archbishop of Canterbury is a 'Painfully stale' idea. 'Painfully stale' Mr Blond. Read the words carefully. Reported widely on the BBC across the country and the world: 'Painfully stale'. Your 'Red Tory' philosophy is Painfully stale says the leader of your Church.
Reply
Gravatar Chris Cook 06 August 2010
I have been pointing out on Labour List for some time

Unions - the Big Society is You

Funding the Big Society

that the Big Society is the greatest opportunity for Labour and Union members - not necessarily for the Labour or Union executives/leadership - for maybe 100 years.

Key to this is are the simple but radical collaborative 21st century legal and financial solutions evolving as a response to the pervasive spread of direct instantaneous communication. As opposed to the genetically modified 19th century solutions currently envisaged by architects of the Big Society.

Union members can and should form co-operatives to provide services (whether in the public or private sectors currently) direct to the public, and if they do so, their freedom from paying returns to shareholders would give them a competitive advantage.

In my view the greatest savings to be made in both the public and private sectors lie firstly in cutting the excessive cost of the vastly expensive overlay of managers and professionals who extract far more value than they are worth, and secondly in reducing the returns made by finance capital to a reasonable level.

The quickest way to achieve these finance gains is to refinance existing debt:

(a) Housing debt, whether private, Council or Housing Association;

(b) Debt outstanding on completed education and health facilities;

(c) Transport-related debt (eg Network Rail);

(d) Debt outstanding on utilities.

All of this debt may be simply refinanced with a new generation of partnership-based equity based on pools of rental/use value.

Such 'Public Equity' would provide a secure, low risk (because affordability = certainty) asset class on the one hand, and would slash the cost of financing on the other hand, because there is no debt repayment, and no compound interest, in the model.

This isn't Rocket Science.

But it is mutualist, and it arguably conflicts with the historical relationship with Private Property which underpins the values of the Conservative party.
Reply
Gravatar Matthew Kalman 04 August 2010
I've suggested in the comments here before a novel (I think?) and evidence-based way by which we might judge whether a Big Idea is 'progressive' or not.

Basically we borrow some assessment tools from the field of adult development research and look at whether particular Big Idea policies seem to helping or hindering people's 'progress' or maturation into greater levels of empathy, self-authoring, self-reflectivity, mutuality, wisdom etc.

Are 'Big Idea' policies helping the citizens they target to progress from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric ways of thinking, and perhaps longer 'time horizons' too?

Are they helping people to develop 'bridging' social capital, rather than only 'bonding' social capital? (Which I suspect is more ethnocentric than worldcentric).

It really is time to start the evidence-based assessment of whether policies are moving us away from narcissism and egocentricity or not (not least as one 5-year OECD project made clear that achieving the 'self-authoring' stage of mind is vital for success in the 21st century; yet a majority - even of the educated – don't yet achieve it!)

Matthew Kalman

Reply
Gravatar Adam Schoenborn 04 August 2010
Great post Jules,

I've been especially interested to see whether and how the Lib Dems will embrace the Big Society project. But Nick Clegg hasn't given us much to go on by embracing the Big Society as the Liberal Society, unless he intends Liberal in the broad sense of "opposed to cruelty" that Judith Sklar advanced. I believe it's that anti-cruelty aspect - and not the extreme individualism - that makes social liberalism so appealing to many. But the Big Society has at its heart a sense of privileging the communal over the individual that just isn't commensurate with Clegg's Liberal Society (even if it's the Socially Liberal Society...)

Reply

Join the discussion Have opinions on this matter? Why not get involved and comment on this below.

Become a Member Joining ResPublica give you an exclusive amount of features. Gain early access to ResPublica events, contribute to topics and much more.

Detailed Summary

Date Published
04 August 2010

Categories
Big Society
Cameron
jfk
neoliberalism
Philosophy

About The Authors

Jules Peck

Jules is a recognised international authority in the field of sustainability and wellbeing. He has over twenty year...