The ‘big society’ has not been having the easiest of times. In recent weeks it has taken a beating from all quarters: criticism from the director of Community Service Volunteers, Dame Elizabeth Hoodless, about the impact of cuts; the highly symbolic withdrawal of Liverpool council from a pilot project; a rearguard action from Downing Street in the form of a £200 million boost to the ‘big society’ bank as part of the government’s deal with the banks – no doubt welcome, but small beer in the context of the spending review’s hit of £4.5 billion on charities’ income as estimated by the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations.

On one level, this is the inevitable political ebb and flow, but to really understand what is going on we need to focus on some of the arguments implicit in the notion of the ‘big society’. Doing so reveals weaknesses in the approaches taken by both the government and opposition, as well as welcome opportunities and challenges.

First of all, it’s worth reflecting on what is really meant by the ‘big society’. Because of the lack of a commonly understood definition, it risks becoming all things to all people, yet progressives must recognise there is something valuable in the government’s stated definition – a society where individuals feel big enough to influence and exert control over their community. Labour was undoubtedly seen as out of touch towards the end of its term in office. One essential step in addressing that perception is to ensure individuals genuinely have more control over their lives. This is only meaningful if it is grounded in practical reality. Our approach as progressives must begin with a recognition that the relationship between society and individuals is more mutually interdependent than acknowledged by the government’s approach both to its own narrative on the ‘big society’ and more generally to public services.

We should also recognise that the ‘big society’ could transcend party politics. Progressives must engage in the debate about the role of society, which after all draws on many of the lessons and achievements of the centre-left: the rich tradition of mutualism, trade unions and cooperatives all grew out of individuals working together to effect change and take control of their communities. Labour therefore needs to develop its own narrative, which is about empowering individuals in the context of their local institutions and national structures.

This poses interesting challenges for progressive organisations: if our organising purpose is to achieve positive social change, then surely we should grasp the ‘big society’ nettle to become more involved in the running of our institutions and services. This includes traditional public sector organisations, but in an ever more pluralist and consumer-driven world it must also extend to other models of public service delivery and ownership. A key challenge is therefore for trade unions and traditional public services to tackle threats to their existence by proving to be innovators in service delivery. Sometimes this will be in partnership and cooperation with new providers, but there are also opportunities to take the lead and compete: a compelling proposition will always be chosen by users over unresponsive services. This is a very different approach to that taken by the government with its targets for market share. If the ‘big society’ is to realise its objective of empowering individuals and local communities, then attention needs to be paid to scalable mechanisms with a guiding maxim based on choosing the highest-quality services that are responsive to local and individual needs.

While David Cameron has been meticulous in trying to avoid conflating cuts and the ‘big society’, others have been more gung-ho. Eric Pickles, for example, chose to trumpet the ‘big society’ as a means to deliver ‘more for less’ on the very day that unprecedented local government budget cuts were announced. This entanglement is one reason why the coalition’s ‘big society’ narrative has begun to flounder. Yet the ‘big society’ is, or at least we should demand it to be, more than a smokescreen for cuts. Regardless of varied motives, if politicians of whatever political hue position the ‘big society’ as a veneer for cuts then we will end up with the double whammy of the most vulnerable members of society suffering the biggest losses while the role of society as a force for progress will also be jeopardised. Our thinking about society needs to be developed on the basis of channelling resources to ensure that real improvements are made to the lives of the most vulnerable and deprived.

There are many potential merits of encouraging individuals, as well as new and existing community groups, to become more closely involved in developing, shaping and providing services. Because few would disagree with this analysis, critics have therefore argued that there is little new in the ‘big society’. Regardless of whether this is accurate or fair, it is clear that any coherent understanding of the ‘big society’ needs to learn from the successes and failures of the Blair-Brown years. As well as practical lessons about previous attempts to develop a stakeholder society and drives to increase volunteering, this also includes lessons about the relationship between users and providers of public services. Alan Milburn often made the case that Labour started winning elections when it moved from articulating producer interests to becoming the champion of the consumer. For Labour’s current policy review, that observation is as valuable now as ever.

It is also important to recognise the transformative potential that becoming more involved in community initiatives can have on individuals. At a personal level, there is something extremely valuable about individuals becoming more actively involved through community groups in both choosing and providing services. There are numerous examples of people who have found a route to realise their full potential through becoming more involved in their local community. This is undoubtedly a good thing and should always be welcomed. Yet the corollary is that there will be people who, for whatever reason, do not become as involved. As even the government’s ‘big society tsar’, Lord Wei, has recently found, volunteering can sometimes be incompatible with ‘having a life’. The ‘big society’ therefore needs to encapsulate an explicit commitment to equity and universality. Without this commitment, backed up with real incentives, there is a significant risk that the ‘big society’ could reinforce the inverse care law whereby those most in need of support and services are least able to access them.

So there are many reasons to welcome a greater focus on the relationship between individuals and society, and many opportunities that will arise for Labour as it seeks to build a coherent policy platform. The logic of this analysis implies some challenging decisions that will take Labour out of its current phase of early opposition and closer to its goal of being ready to return to government. This means embracing the best possible delivery of services as chosen by users regardless of ownership. It demands a more sophisticated approach to policies such as free schools and choice in public services, recognising the importance that individuals rightly place on services that are responsive to, and shaped around, their needs. The public recognises the importance of balancing the budget yet opposes mindless cuts.

Labour must therefore see the ‘big society’ as an opportunity to build a new coherent story about how individuals and their communities can be transformed through their closer involvement in, and choice over, genuinely responsive public services.