Having watched Johann Hari and others debating the Big Society on Channel 4's ever improving 10 O'Clock Live, I can't help but think, that in the battle between right and left, and indeed, right and wrong, both camps are missing some important points.
The raw concept, as described by Cameron, is fundamentally infallible. Who, in their right mind, could deny the worth of encouraging those in the local community to volunteer more frequently, to take ownership of local services and, ultimately, take more responsibility for the environment and the people around them?
Indeed, charities, associations, schools etc. rely on the free time and goodwill of those in their local community, without whom they simply wouldn't survive. Go to any school Summer Fête or witness the Salvation Army providing free hot food and entertainment on a troubled local council estate and you'll see many volunteers who are the very definition of 'Big Society'.
Those on the left who attack the actual principle risk appearing to throw their toys out of the pram for the sake of it, or worse, could be rightly accused of hypocrisy. Surely socialists are in favour of many of the ideas encapsulated by Cameron's supposed mission?
The crux of the argument against therefore, is not in the 'what' but in the 'how' and 'why'. You've also got to ask yourself should Governments be espousing such a principle as policy? Surely Cameron is stating the obvious in his plea for Britain to volunteer more? Government shouldn't be preaching to us on a solely moral level but empowering us to be able to support each other in practical ways.
I'm yet to read or hear of a successful practical example of Cameron's vision and, frankly, how would we judge whether it's down to his good leadership regardless? The new PM has been quite clever in that respect, the Big Society's success, or otherwise, is pretty hard to measure.
It's clever too in its apparent diametric opposition to Thatcher's infamous quote 'there's no such thing as society'. In terms of image, Cameron wants to distance himself from Thatcher in an attempt to re-brand his party as 'compassionate' and it could be argued that he has been successful in doing so.
Of course, when you read between the lines, it becomes clear there's not much difference at all. Tuition fees have risen, public service spending has been cut drastically, plans to restructure the NHS look to be threatening equal standard of care for all etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Conservatives would argue that the UK's current financial debt means cuts are essential and that we are, after all, 'all in this together', but it's increasingly difficult not to feel the Big Society, and the need to address the debt itself, is merely a convenient cover for Cameron's real purpose in stripping back. Indeed, there is suggestion that only increased government spending leads to increased volunteering and that the belief people will step forward willingly despite cuts is, quite simply, wrong.
When bankers, whose misdemeanors, lest we forget, have put us in this precarious position, are still able to award themselves enormous bonuses, is it any wonder we find ourselves questioning the significance of over half of Conservative party funding coming from City financiers?
Either way, we shouldn't confuse a policy with a concept - which is all Cameron's 'Big Society' appears to be. Judge the coalition on policies alone, policies which suggest Cameron's Conservatives are interested in anything but the welfare of wider society.
The raw concept, as described by Cameron, is fundamentally infallible. Who, in their right mind, could deny the worth of encouraging those in the local community to volunteer more frequently, to take ownership of local services and, ultimately, take more responsibility for the environment and the people around them?
Indeed, charities, associations, schools etc. rely on the free time and goodwill of those in their local community, without whom they simply wouldn't survive. Go to any school Summer Fête or witness the Salvation Army providing free hot food and entertainment on a troubled local council estate and you'll see many volunteers who are the very definition of 'Big Society'.
Those on the left who attack the actual principle risk appearing to throw their toys out of the pram for the sake of it, or worse, could be rightly accused of hypocrisy. Surely socialists are in favour of many of the ideas encapsulated by Cameron's supposed mission?
The crux of the argument against therefore, is not in the 'what' but in the 'how' and 'why'. You've also got to ask yourself should Governments be espousing such a principle as policy? Surely Cameron is stating the obvious in his plea for Britain to volunteer more? Government shouldn't be preaching to us on a solely moral level but empowering us to be able to support each other in practical ways.
I'm yet to read or hear of a successful practical example of Cameron's vision and, frankly, how would we judge whether it's down to his good leadership regardless? The new PM has been quite clever in that respect, the Big Society's success, or otherwise, is pretty hard to measure.
It's clever too in its apparent diametric opposition to Thatcher's infamous quote 'there's no such thing as society'. In terms of image, Cameron wants to distance himself from Thatcher in an attempt to re-brand his party as 'compassionate' and it could be argued that he has been successful in doing so.
Of course, when you read between the lines, it becomes clear there's not much difference at all. Tuition fees have risen, public service spending has been cut drastically, plans to restructure the NHS look to be threatening equal standard of care for all etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Conservatives would argue that the UK's current financial debt means cuts are essential and that we are, after all, 'all in this together', but it's increasingly difficult not to feel the Big Society, and the need to address the debt itself, is merely a convenient cover for Cameron's real purpose in stripping back. Indeed, there is suggestion that only increased government spending leads to increased volunteering and that the belief people will step forward willingly despite cuts is, quite simply, wrong.
When bankers, whose misdemeanors, lest we forget, have put us in this precarious position, are still able to award themselves enormous bonuses, is it any wonder we find ourselves questioning the significance of over half of Conservative party funding coming from City financiers?
Either way, we shouldn't confuse a policy with a concept - which is all Cameron's 'Big Society' appears to be. Judge the coalition on policies alone, policies which suggest Cameron's Conservatives are interested in anything but the welfare of wider society.
No comments:
Post a Comment