‘Big society’: not cohesive Conservatism


by Dave Osler    
3:45 pm - April 7th 2010

Tweet       Share on Tumblr

Contemporary British politicians rarely adhere to any cohesive set of ideas, yet for some reason feel compelled to pretend that they do. And if their ostensible philosophy can be condensed into a two-word soundbite for the benefit of headline writers, so much the better.

Remember Blair’s ‘stakeholder society’ stance, circa 1995? The concept did not entail much by way of concrete measures, but the accompanying rhetoric spoke warmly of social inclusion, trust, co-operation, long-termism, equality of opportunity, participation, active citizenship, and rights and responsibilities.

Thus properly social democratic concern over Britain’s unequal distribution of wealth, income and power could be neatly skirted around for the duration of a three-month touchy-feely gabfest, after which the prime minister in waiting dropped all mention of the term for no apparent reason.

I cannot help detecting a similar lack of substance in David Cameron’s claim to stand for a ‘big society’, which has been a theme repeated in several recent speeches.

Some of the ideas he has floated under this banner sound distinctly antithetical to anything recognisable as Toryism. Indeed, his call for ‘every adult’ a member of an ‘active neighbourhood group’ must surely mark the closest a prominent Conservative has come to a flirtation with Cuban-style Comités de Defensa de la Revolución in Britain. Hasta siempre comandante.

As many commentators have pointed out, the demand for a ‘neighbourhood army’ of 5,000 full-time community organisers is seemingly a straight lift from the thinking of American radical Saul Alinsky, famously the man about whom Hillary Clinton wrote her senior honors thesis.

I’d willing put a decent wager on the proposition that the chances of either policy ever being adopted is somewhere around zero. The chief criticism I can level at them from the left is not that they are intrinsically evil, but rather that they are just plain crazy.

Blue sky thinking is all well and good, but these notions do violence to the entire Burkean ‘Little Platoons’ tradition. To this school of thinking, if social self-help arrangements of the kind Cameron is apparently advocating do not arise spontaneously, they will a fortiori not be brought into being by state diktat. In any case, no true conservative should ever want to tell ‘all adults’ what they should all do.

The marketing man’s point of the term big society – if there is one – is its implicit repudiation of no-such-thing-as-society Thatcherism. If it doesn’t mean that, I am forced to the conclusion that it doesn’t actually mean anything much at all.

   Tweet   Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Dave Osler is a regular contributor. He is a British journalist and author, ex-punk and ex-Trot. Also at: Dave's Part
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Conservative Party ,Westminster


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. cjcjc

Volunteer or we’ll make you.

2. Matt Munro

It reminded a bit of the urge to “Walk with purpose” made by a conservative politician whose name I forget at some point in the mini crime wave of the eary 90s. The basic idea being that upstanding citizens would take control of the streets with a moral compas and a bit of finger wagging. My objection (apart from the spectacular naivety of the idea) is that we pay tax for a police force and a judicial system so why should be have to enforce the law for free, at our own risk ? It’s like buying a dog and then barking yourself.

3. CDF

I agree that it’s difficult to discern concrete policies amidst this rhetoric; it’s the candy floss that’s supposed to act as a chaser for the blandness of the same. The “main parties” are not asking the right question with genuine feeling: how shall we live?

4. Bob B

This morning I had an election letter from David Cameron, delivered by Royal Mail. A few days ago, I received a letter, also by mail, from George Osborne.

This election literature distribution by mail must be costing thousands if not millions.

By implication, it makes a revealing commentary on Cameron’s Big Society initiative to promote volunteering in support of social and health care as an alternative to funded public services.

If the Conservatives can’t trust volunteers to deliver their election literature, why should we trust volunteers to deliver social and healthcare to those who need it?

5. Galen10

So let me get this straight.. “Big Society” = “Small Government”?

This should be no surprise surely? It’s the same old Tory guff about helping those who help themselves, trickle down economics, low taxes, the state doing the bare minimum etc, etc.

Now we have the “Crimestoppers” writ large, and voluntary National Service to re-invigorate our communities. Who needs a welfare state when we can depend on charities and the voluntary sector right? Let’s fix “Broken Britain” with some back to basics, Victorian values and some fund raising tombolas and Community Support officers in lieu of a Police Force.

Dream on Dave.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    'Big society': not cohesive Conservatism http://bit.ly/aElyA8





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.