This is a real pity, because the result risks discrediting a cherished and universally shared principle which has defined decently lived lives in communities up and down our country for generations. We value our relationships with those around us, do things whose benefits extend beyond us and our families, and believe that this contributes to a good and decent society. Our country is better when communities are strong.
While it is easy to support the rhetoric, his government’s failure to pursue the ‘big society’ through progressive principles in practice means that, without a change in direction, it will fail.
David Cameron acts as if exhortation and prime ministerial support are enough. His failure to give leadership across government, and to ensure the implementation of action that gives practical definition, consistency and support to his vision has been fatal.
This is because his real problem is ideological: he is convinced that you can either have government action or civic action but you can’t have both. Indeed he wrongly believes that the presence of government support (local or national) inevitably enervates community action.
This is where free market fundamentalism undermines Cameron’s idea of the ‘big society’: our economy and our communities are expected to spring into life the minute government leaves the scene. The invisible hand of society is assumed to replace the invisible hand of the market.
As it says in ACEVO’s Big Society Commission’s report, published this week, the government needs ‘to recognise that if we want people to take more responsibility… we will need to give them the encouragement and the vehicles to do so…government’s role must be one of acting as partner, catalyst and mobiliser.’
I agree. The government is foolish to see this essential partnership as statist.
It is here where Cameron’s doctrinaire obsession with a smaller state defeats his own objects. Over the 13 years of the New Labour government, we saw a significant growth in community organisations – the building blocks of our communal and social life. According to a recent survey of charity leaders, 55 per cent of community groups of these will cut staff by June this year, and 35 per cent will cut their services.
Under the indiscriminate impact of public sector cuts the essential elements of community life are slowly being starved of sustenance. What we lose in the next two years may become impossible to rebuild in 10.
So while we support their aspirations, we call on the government to resolve this contradiction, and to recognise that the way forward is to adopt a clear policy of community where possible, government where necessary.
Whatever one’s polictics, surely we can all agree that this article is so vacuous it is an embarassment. Jowell has nothing to say but she insists on saying it at length. The only practical or tangible point she (almost) makes is that charities should not be subject to Govt cuts. In which case, where would she cut? And at what point do charities that depend on Govt funding cease to be charities and become part of the para state? There is an excellent article to be written about the strengths, weaknesses, and future of The Big Society. Jowell’s article is not it.
the New Statesman (ha) accuses Ed M. of not being a new statesman or being decisively in opposition but, tall order eh, to be in opposition to virulent capitalism ,when we all know capitalism it is the necessary contingency we are stuck with to engender wealth for the country The N.S. (ha) may as well accuse him of not being the new Jesus ,he is party leader not some sort of Renaissance Socrates,its a team effort ,we are all on the team ?