Phillip Blond, director of Respublica, spoke of the new centre-ground emerging around the politics and policies of Blue Labour and Red Tory and raised the risk of Labour becoming more conservative in the defence of existing institutions than the government. He argued that while the Tories had stolen Labour’s idea it was because the ‘big society’ was Tory in the first place – it was an act of restitution. His analysis is based on his view that civil society had been squeezed out between an increasingly intrusive, authoritarian state and an invasive and corrosive market capitalism. At times Blond seemed to equate collectivism with statism which caused many a furrowed brow amongst the cooperators in the audience. He also called for a withdrawal of the principle of universalism from welfare.

In supporting some of the government’s current policies, he highlighted Eric Pickles’ localism bill including its provisions for community rights to challenge and buy. One area that Blond identified for further development in supporting the ‘big society’ was the need to look at how charitable and private funding could be blended, eg social impact bonds and US-style L3C organisations.

The father of blue Labour, Maurice Glasman’s analysis was in large part similar, with a focus on promoting the power of association to challenge capital: ‘Relationships should precede action; people should precede progress’. His critique was that New Labour had lost touch with an understanding of how human beings actually are and what they value and became detached from them as a result. He spoke of the need to deal with the issues of isolation, powerlessness and depression in our communities, with relational politics being key. For him mutualisation and cooperatives were not key issues for consideration, but rather the nature of the economy.

Advocating for a stronger voice for producers and users he called for a return to the principles of Hugh Dalton’s Distribution of Industry Act 1945 which helped redevelop areas which depended heavily on specific heavy industries, and which had been hard hit by unemployment in the interwar period. Glasman called for more support for SMEs, more power to workers through German-style workers boards, a plan for regional growth, endowments of institutions and redistribution of assets.

Shadow cabinet office minister, Tessa Jowell spoke of the roles and responsibilities of the state in supporting communities, through funding, commissioning and capacity building: ‘Community where possible, government national/local where necessary, partnership always’. She talked passionately about her own experiences of working with her local community, the vital role that statutory services play, and the role of beauty and improved quality of life in encouraging a positive sense of place. Referencing Richard Titmuss’ 1970s blood donation model which looked at altruism as a motivation to assist others, she spoke of the need to encourage people to give the ‘gift of time’.

Cllr Paul Brant, deputy leader of Liverpool city council, set out his thoughts that the ‘big society’ was made up of three strands of Tory thinking: volunteerism (which Labour should welcome and support), mutualism, privatisation-lite. While seeing the benefits of local decision-making such as in participative budgeting Cllr Brant was clear that participative democracy needs to be supported by a strong representative democracy. He pointed out the clear limits of volunteerism and the need for a clear role for the public sector to support mutualism. (Ipsos MORI’s polling has found that only about five per cent of people express even a nominal interest in becoming actively involved in the delivery of public services).

Much of the ‘big society’ agenda represents nothing more than a rebranding, dilution or tweaking of programmes already put in place by the previous Labour government. From the Big Society Bank (nee Social Investment Bank) to Jack Straw’s social impact bonds in criminal justice to Hazel Blears’ community asset transfers, we have seen it before.

Indeed Tony Blair first rose to public prominence by articulating widely held communitarian instincts about the excesses of market liberalism. Many of the ideas he championed in his 1995 conference speech – from the ‘stakeholder society’ to ‘a new moral purpose for our nation’ seem to have been recently revisited by David Cameron or Ed Miliband.

Cameron has said that he aims ‘to be as radical a social reformer as Mrs Thatcher was an economic reformer’. But unlike Mr Blair – who pledged to rebuild ‘civic society’ and use the power of the state to transform individual lives – Mr Cameron believes the answer lies in the state doing less.

What the Tories fail to understand is that the ‘big society’ cannot be a replacement for the state if the state is the main source of funding and elected politicians accept a responsibility for alleviating the plight of the most vulnerable, as they must. Neil Kinnock first raised the prospect of an enabling state in the mid-1980s. It is this enabling state which continues to form the clear blue water between us and the Tories. It is this enabling state which can help us to build communities ‘in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few’.