Big Society’s big failing

It needs to be emphasised, however, that this is principally a failure of communication. The Big Society is floundering not because it is a nebulous idea – on the contrary, it is very simple – but because the Ministers given the task of selling it to the public have been so poor at their job.

Yet, in essence, the Big Society is almost a statement of the obvious – that ordinary people bear a responsibility for each other and for society as a whole and it is only through exercising this responsibility that strong families and strong communities can be built.

It is also a traditionally conservative idea – a call to arms for Edmund Burke’s “little platoons” of voluntary groups and neighbourhood associations to take on the tasks that the state is failing to do, or is performing inefficiently.

To be fair to Mr Cameron, he has been talking about “rolling forward the frontiers of society” for some time, well before the scale of the cuts needed to reduce the public-sector deficit became apparent.

Yet his failure to make a coherent case for the Big Society has left many with the impression that this is not about the moral case for people to take responsibility for one another, but about the need for the Government to do less merely in order to save money.

Indeed, Mr Cameron’s critics have a point. For how can voluntary groups sustain their current activities, let alone take on new responsibilities, when their funding is being slashed? How can Burke’s little platoons be fully mobilised when their legs are being cut from beneath them?

Yesterday’s speech was a start, but if the Big Society is to be anything more than a soundbite, the Prime Minister has much work still to do. His announcement of new funding for charities shows that he recognises the problem, but equally it begs the question of what happens when the money runs out.

By the same token, will the provision of 5,000 community organisers to energise volunteers in disadvantaged areas be enough in the face of new evidence that the areas where the Big Society is most needed are precisely those where it will have the least effect?

And, when firms such as Asda and Morrisons claim that the localism agenda will burden them with more bureaucratic costs, is this not an opportunity for Mr Cameron to show that the Big Society is also about removing those bureaucratic barriers, such as needless planning or health-and-safety legislation, that deter people from stepping forward to help others?