The Big Society already exists with the existing Voluntary Organisations and Charities and they have existed for many years.

I guess that you could build on the existing Voluntary and Charitable Organisations so to starve them of cash with these cutbacks is completely insane.

Maybe David Cameron is going to play a Clever, Deceitful, Psychological Mind game by starving the existing Voluntary and Charitable Organistions of cash so that they either barely function or go under, then at a later date re-invest Tax Payers money into them when the economy picks up and then claim all the credit for creating The Big Society that already existed before his cutbacks.

It is all a bit like building a house with bricks only for someone to knock it down so that you have to rebuild it again.

“Your first responsibility is to look after yourself, and then look after your neighbour, if you can be arsed.”

Precisely. And yet we get all sorts of disingenuous comments asking us why we could possibly dislike this utopian dream of neighbour helping neighbour.

“Big Society is a completely vacuous construction that doesn’t mean anything in particular”

FWIW I think the notion harks back to the prevailing politics of the early 19th century when governments were committed to the ideology of laissez-faire but with self-regulation to curb unacceptable outcomes while leaving public services to the market or to the churches and to charities.

The first of the Factory Acts – an early recognition by Parliament that unregulated labour markets could lead to unacceptable outcomes – dates back to 1802 and a long succession of interventionist acts followed. In short, Parliament became increasingly disillusioned about the attractions of free market capitalism early on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Acts

The Education Act of 1870 created the basic administrative structures to provide universal primary education as it became apparent that education standards in Britain were slipping behind those in other western European countries as a consequence of leaving schooling in Britain to the churches and to charities. Attendance in primary schools was made compulsory in 1880 – an explicit rejection of laissez-faire for schooling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_Education_Act_1870

Credit for introducing a national welfare state must surely go to Count von Bismarck, first Chancellor of the German empire (1871-90), who launched not only state pensions for the aged but, in 1883, a social insurance scheme to cover personal healthcare costs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Chancellor_of_the_German_Empire

Bismarck was not renown for his socialist inclinations..

A framework for elected local government was created by the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 and the Local Government Act of 1888, which established elected county councils:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_local_government_in_England

When the Attlee’s government of 1945-51 came to nationalise the gas and electricity industries in the 1940s, many of the supply companies had been previously set up by local authorities.

This might, theoretically at least, hold water as an argument if any Conservative (or indeed Thatcher) actually thought “there is no such thing as society”. But, there’s no point letting facts get in the way of a good left-wing rant.

It seems odd to me that Cameron should be so dedicated to communitarianism. Is it that he is dedicated to protecting locl communities? Or is he just after a system that will reduce the involvement of the state and bring about huge cuts to public services.

My bet is on the latter.

@ 4 Biffy Dunderdale

“This might, theoretically at least, hold water as an argument if any Conservative (or indeed Thatcher) actually thought “there is no such thing as society”. But, there’s no point letting facts get in the way of a good left-wing rant.”

This in itself might hold water had not Thatcher explicitly and publically said “there is no such thing as society”. You could go look it up in a library if you’re quick enough.

Its a vacuous phrase from a vacuous PR man, whose only real job was helping to run Britain’s worst ITV region, Carlton, into the ground where he acquired the nickname of Satan (I’d love to know why). Its name is simply a ripoff of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society but its objective is to destroy the public sector altogether and replace it with volunteers and the coerced unemployed. And of course A4E, G4S, Reed etc will be sniffing round for any money that’s going.

Peace in our time, the shareholder society, the stakeholder society, you’ve never had it so good etc ad nauseum. All bollocks.

Am I imagining it or was it simply the congenial company of Nick Robinson’s “please tell me how wonderful you are” interview on Newsnight last night or is Cameron sounding posher these days? There were times last night he sounded nearly like Prince Charles. The mask is slipping

There are one or two simple truths to this. Charities have become commercial operations with a large number of seriously well paid employees. One way or another it’s all being paid for by central government, local authorities and a tiny bit from donations. As for this so called “army of volunteers” that’s supposed to be available, codswallop.

They never did exist and never will. It’s also impossible to find out what the employed / volunteer ration actually is ? Even the WRVS Meals on Wheels service is reputed to be 40% employed personnel.

My answer, stop all public funding to all charities, I want to choose where my money is donated. After that, make these business based service providing charities put forward a proper Business Case for further funding.

While they’re about it they can bin Gift Aiding to wealthy private estates as well. Far too many of our landed gentry are living for nothing at the tax payers expense.

@4: “This might, theoretically at least, hold water as an argument if any Conservative (or indeed Thatcher) actually thought ‘there is no such thing as society’.”

I looked into the sociology literature and came up with this illuminating analysis in 1967 by the late Professor WJH “Sebastian” Sprott:

“The answer to the first question – ‘What is a society?’ is that it is a figment of the imagination. . . The fact is that in physics and chemistry you start with lumps of matter; you then analyse things into their chemical elements, into different combinations of entities, protons and the like. Far from being directly acquainted with the elements, it is not unknown for philosophers to question the existence of them. Equally nonsensical is it to say that we have a direct acquaintance with society. We do not. We have direct acquaintance only with people interacting, ie the elements of society, in so far as as it exists at all, is constituted. So I say that society is in some sense a figment of imagination. But we do in fact have in our minds models of the society in which we live. You can, if some foreigner asks questions about your society, refer to your model – not a very clear one perhaps; ‘scheme’ would be a better word in use. But you have some sort of model with its political system, economic system, legal system, religious system class system and so on. You have some sort of model in your mind of the society in which you live and, if you go abroad, you prepare a model which you hope will correspond in some sort of way with the society they happen to have.”

[Source: "Society: what is it and how does it change?" from The Educational Implications of Social and Economic Change (HMSO 1967), reprinted in: DF Swift (ed): Basic Readings in the Sociology of Education (Routledge, 1970)]

On Sebastian Sprott and the Bloomsbury Group and his friendship with Maynard Keynes, see Paul Levy on: The Bloomsbury Group
http://www.ua.es/personal/jalvarez/Word/Adiciones%20de%202005/levy.rtf

@ 4 Biffy Dunderhead

“This might, theoretically at least, hold water as an argument if any Conservative (or indeed Thatcher) actually thought “there is no such thing as society”. But, there’s no point letting facts get in the way of a good left-wing rant.”

Not only did they think it, they said as much in the pages of Woman’s Own no less.

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

No point letting a lack of reasearch get in the way of a lame attempt to deny the obvious.

4
It was the Liberals who were committed to laissez-faire, and after the 1815 Settlement which signalled the end of the Napoleonic wars, enabled competition from abroad, The Corn Law 1816 was introduced.by Jenkinson and was, from the beginning, criticised by Liberals. and of course it led to the establishing of the anti-corn law league by Cobden and Peel.
During this period the tories took their ideological base from Edmund Burke in ‘Reflections of the Revolution in France’ – “we conservatives do not believe in individuals”
As the century passed and the economic elite were no longer the land-owners, the tories changed their position and began to support the notion of laissez-faire.
The tories will always support the economic elite whoever it happens to be.

Sorry that last post was for @3

@6

“You could go look it up in a library if you’re quick enough.”

Yeouch, nice line…

Our ignoramus @4 can always look here too http://briandeer.com/social/thatcher-society.htm

The Big Society is really just another way of achieving the same end as Thatchers’ “there is no such thing as society”. It is simply better disguied as you would expect from a PR wonk.

It always amused me that a party which so fervently denied the existence of society (because it was an artificial construct describing interaction of individuals), could simultaneously evince such slavish devotion towards markets.

Indeed, not only were markets “real” but they actually believed (or claimed to believe..?) that they could develop institutions which mimic markets, even though they were designed and controlled politically. Of course the true libertarian, minarchists probably would relinquish state control over markets altogether. Back in the real world however the Tories (then and now) prefer to use legislation and regulation to promote the vested interests of those who support them and have most to gain from such measures.

The fact that everyone else pays for it is a positive advantage in their eyes, since of course you guessed it….. there is no such thing as society!

@11: “As the century passed and the economic elite were no longer the land-owners, the tories changed their position and began to support the notion of laissez-faire.”

The historical narrative is not monolithic.

Corn laws of one kind or another had an ancient history – and the notion was resurrected in the agricultural price support schemes of the Common Market.

Such laws served the interests of the land owning classes in the 19th century but were also motivated by then prevailing mercantilist notions of promoting national self-sufficiency in essential food supplies. The repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 split the Conservatives who didn’t regain power for 25 years. But the repeal did little to bring down the market price of corn until the 1870s when trans-Atlantic shipping costs declined.

Passage of the succession of the interventionist factory acts owe much to the campaigning of Anthony Ashley Cooper, the eldest son of the 6th Earl of Shaftesbury, who was a Tory. Conservatives have long been ambivalent about laissez-faire and Disraeli regarded the corn laws quite pragmatically, a matter of political expediency in their time, not doctrine.

Winston Churchill was a minister in a Liberal government when he took through Parliament the Trade Boards Act of 1909. This provided for an administrative structure for deciding on minimum wages in particular low-wage industries which was certainly inconsistent with laissez-faire although subsequent Conservative governments allowed the legislation to stand until the 1980s.

The Conservative passions for deregulation and free-market capitalism in recent times seem to have abated somewhat with a realisation that the banks and financial systems were seriously under-regulated in both America and Britain, one result of which was the financial crisis.

IMO any policy which purports to hang on such a nebulous concept as “society” needs scrutinising very carefully. Sprott was essentially correct – “society” is nothing more than a notional model in our heads and it’s very doubtful whether its connotations without explicit elaboration are the same for any two individuals selected at random. We can surely all agree that virtue is good and sin is bad – the trouble comes with deciding on the boundaries between the two.

14 & 15
The tories will say anything and draw on any theory which suits their purpose. Whether there really is society or not it won’t change their policies and that’s why I have a tendency to ignore anything they say except for debating purposes.

@16: “Whether there really is society or not it won’t change their policies and that’s why I have a tendency to ignore anything they say except for debating purposes.”

There’s certainly more point in raking over the actual policies of the coalition government than in debating whether or not “society” actually exists and, if so, what is it.

I tend to be Popperite (The Open Society and Its Enemies) about this and reflect on what observations should be sought which could conclusively refute the hypothesis: There is such a thing as society.

My trouble is that I have great difficulty in thinking of any critical observations which would refute the hypothesis, just as I have difficulty in envisaging observations which could refute the hypothesis: It is unlucky to walk under ladders.

As for the Big Society, I think Cameron should be pressed to say when did it prevail in Britain, if ever, and does it prevail now in some other country we could attempt to emulate. Denmark seems to be an attractive candidate:

“If it is happiness you are seeking a move to Denmark could be in order, according to the first scientist to make a world map of happiness.

“Adrian White, from the UK’s University of Leicester, used the responses of 80,000 people worldwide to map out subjective wellbeing.

“Denmark came top, followed closely by Switzerland and Austria. The UK ranked 41st. Zimbabwe and Burundi came bottom.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5224306.stm

I think the sheer revulsion with which people on the Left are reacting to this is actually quite counterproductive. What Cameron is describing is an attempt at a broad shift towards right-wing ideology, and I’m absolutely certain that it’s misguided and damaging. But having a little circle-jerk over how much we all hate Thatcher isn’t going to get anyone anywhere.

Here’s one of the key parts of Cameron’s speech:

“So, responsibility is the absolute key. If you ask yourself the question, ‘Can I take more responsibility, can I do more?’, very often, the answer is no. How easy is it, if you are not satisfied with education, to club together and start up a new school? It’s incredibly difficult. How easy is it to try and take over the closing down pub in your village to keep it running? It’s incredibly difficult. How easy is it to volunteer if you want to take part and do more, with all the rules in the past about vetting and barring and criminal records? It’s extremely difficult. So, what this is all about is giving people more power and control to improve their lives and their communities. That, in a nutshell, is what it is all about. ”

I think anybody who’s actually interested in being part of some kind of opposition to what the Tories are doing, on any level, needs to read that, understand why it is, in some ways, enticing, why the picture it paints of the role of community is an appealing one, and then needs to think through a logical and well-articulated description of why it’s divorced from reality and doomed to fail. Most of the people I’ve seen advocating or defending the Big Society have been eloquent and given well-thought out arguments in its favour, while most of those against seem almost immediately to fall to spluttering “Ridiculous!”, waxing lyrical about how great libraries are, or- yes- circle-jerking about how much we all hate Thatcher. It’s totally unproductive and the best, fastest way to let the Right steamroll their ideology over this country.

@18

“Most of the people I’ve seen advocating or defending the Big Society have been eloquent and given well-thought out arguments in its favour, while most of those against seem almost immediately to fall to spluttering “Ridiculous!”, waxing lyrical about how great libraries are, or- yes- circle-jerking about how much we all hate Thatcher”

Then you haven’t been looking hard enough.

Just because people lie through such nice teeth, and in such plummy accents, doesn’t make the lies more convincing.

18
I can’t speak for all of the left but my particular reason for ‘revulsion’ (don’t know if that’s quite the right description) is that it comes straight out of cloud-cuckoo land.

@18: “I think the sheer revulsion with which people on the Left are reacting to this is actually quite counterproductive. ”

My reaction certainly isn’t one of “revulsion|”. As my messages above have sought to show, the Big Society notion doesn’t survive even the most basic academic analysis for “transparency”, to deploy that much used buzz term..

We are entitled IMO to ask of Cameron whether his notion of a Big Society has ever actually existed and, if so, when and where? How could we know if and when we have reached the Big Society?

Does some other country fulfil the essential criteria – whatever the criteria are – so that we could attempt to emulate its institutions? I ventured to suggest Denmark as a candidate @17 because it came out well from an international survey aiming to establish which countries have resident populations that feel most happy.

As best I can tell from media reports, even Conservatives espousing the Big Society have serious difficulties in responding to the specific questions about its meaning – I was impressed by this report in the FT, for example:

“The Big Society just generates a lot of cynicism – the public see it as cover for cuts,” laments one Tory MP. “We are trying to breathe life into it but the patient isn’t reviving.” The scepticism reaches into the heart of government. Civil servants have dubbed the concept “BS”. Phillip Blond, a think-tanker who helped coin the concept, says the Treasury regards it with “amused indifference”.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/97c67eac-361d-11e0-9b3b-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1Dh8jsetK

If I were Cameron, I’d be planning for another relaunch.

@21

I refer you to Don Paskini’s formulation of the Philip Blond test:

“The Philip Blond test is simple – if Philip Blond would support the policy proposal, bin it. ”

Of course in this case, one doesn’t have to rely just on the Blond test; it is just wrong on so many levels.

http://don-paskini.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-big-society-failedand-what-labour.html

The difference is Thatcher sold off public assets to her monied mates; Cameron is giving them away. The cuts create the need for councils to dispose of assets like libraries, parks, pools,, and groups of ‘engaged citizens’ allegedly step forward to take them over. Who will these groups be? The well to do middle classes with time on their hands, and a concern with society changing in ways they don’t like. What kinds of books will be in these big society libraries? More to the point, what kind won’t be allowed? What kind of people will be allowed in the BS parks? What kind of activities allowed in ‘public access’ forests? It’s all part of a piece: the free schools will allow tossers like Toby Young or religious organisations to teach whatever limited curriculum they want. The removal of public funding from university departments of arts, humanities and social sciences, replaced by student debt, will mean that only people who are monied enough to not worry about making a living to pay off loans will take these courses: future generations of artists, museum curators etc will reflect the tastes of these people. Now multi-culturalism is under attack.

All part of a piece, and that piece is the revenge of the Mail reading set, looking for a return to the good old days of the 1950s. How fucking depressing.

This quote summed up Big Society for me.

‘No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions; he had money as well.’
Margaret Thatcher

Cameron in his Big Society is saying exactly the same thing.

Rather a good line from an unlikely source.

“Calling an organisation that takes tax payers money a charity is like calling a prostitute your girlfriend.”

That is the small society.

What Cameron and his supporters forget is that for many of us, we have been here before. Reading many of Cameron’s re-launch speeches for the ‘Big Society’ it is choc full of rhetoric that sounds quite inspirational and enabling; full of ‘local communities’ this and ‘local groups providing solutions’ that and everything appears rosy and what a great idea.

Was it really thirty years ago that Cameron’s predecessor and ideological guru launched ‘Care in the Community’? That too, was backed up with great sentiments, fantastic concepts and a commitment to look after the Country’s vulnerable.

Yet for some reason, the Country’s mentally ill are rarely ‘cared’ for in the community. They are filtered through a labyrinth of seaside B&Bs, doss houses, homeless centres and the like and end up being ‘cared’ for in the Country’s prisons. Our prisons are full of people whose only crime is that they simply cannot cope with life. Now had the Tories told the truth, it would be called ‘Abandoned into prison cells’, but that had little ring to it.

My objection to the ‘Big Society’ is not that I disagree with the rhetoric used to support it, or even the very concept, but because the people who advocate such a policy have been repeatedly shown to be greedy, selfish bastards with an absolute hatred of the very group of people the purport to help. The modern Tory Party have shown nothing but contempt for the Country’s unfortunates; they have attempted to humiliate the weakest members of our society at every opportunity. That is why there is cynicism regarding the ‘Big Society’. We know that the bastards behind it are little more than venal scum.

The saddest aspect is that Cameron has announced this is his ‘mission’; this is something he passionately believes in, apparently. Perhaps he should consider why our ‘society’ has lost its way. Perhaps he should take into consideration that we have lived in a culture whose entire ethos has been about the slavish devotion to acquiring as much wealth as possible, no matter the ethics or morality behind it. Perhaps that is why we need a ‘big society’ to counteract the ‘Me, Me, Me’, and ‘Destroy, destroy, destroy’ culture of the yuppy? If this is his passion, then it makes you wonder why he joined the Party that advocated ‘Look after number one at all costs’?

19, you’re missing my point. Somebody being on the correct side in an argument does not mean they’re eloquent, or rational, or have thought through their views, much as I wish it did.

20, right, and I agree, but that in of itself isn’t an argument, and it’s certainly not going to convince anybody who finds the vision that Cameron is selling at all enticing

21, of the people who had commented, you were somewhat the exception to what I was saying

‘The Big Society’ was knocked up by arch Thatcherite Oliver Letwin on the back of an envelope one weekend after Cameron thought the the Tories were a bit light on a Big Idea (I notice Letwin is still being kept in a box somewhere for fear of scaring voters).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article7096751.ece

If it’s anything more than bullshit (doubtful) it’s an attempt to return to 19th century voluntarism, ‘good works’ and charity.

Thing is, it didn’t work in the 19th C, that’s why something called the Labour Representation Committee was founded.

PS

Francis Maude does his best to explain The Big Society and his part in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2Wue8IN_xQ

@27 Ben

I don’t think I’m missing your point at all; I just don’t think it is valid.

There are plenty of erudite, rational people out there to critique the fatuous nature of the Big Society as a concept. As Jim notes @26 above, many people are also passionately opposed to the nauseating intellectual foundations of the concept because it gives them a sense of deja vu. Those of us who witnessed the Thatcher years in all their repulsive glory aren’t fooled.

So, your original premise @18 above is not only false but entirely misses the point. Claiming that:

“Most of the people I’ve seen advocating or defending the Big Society have been eloquent and given well-thought out arguments in its favour, while most of those against seem almost immediately to fall to spluttering “Ridiculous!”, waxing lyrical about how great libraries are, or- yes- circle-jerking about how much we all hate Thatcher.”

is not only superficial, it’s just plain wrong. Much of the nebulous apologia trying to give the Big Society concept the intellectual credibility it so clearly lacks is simply an exercise in spouting “motherhood and apple pie” statements which few people would find objectionable in themselves.

It behoves us all to examine the sub-text, and that is both deeply worrying and profoundly unpleasant. I’ve actually seen remarkably few eloquent or well thought out arguments in favour of the Big Society; even most Tory party loyalists don’t rate it as a concept, hence the constant re-launches in it’s relatively short life.

However, even where someone eloquent does come up with well thought out arguments in favour, that can’t disguise the fact that like the promised benefits of the Thatcher revolution, the proposed benefits of the Big Society will of course never be realised. The whole farago is a smokescreen for the Tories to ensure things stay much the same, or indeed get better for their supporters and paymasters. They never have and never will be interested in promoting equality, or caring for communities or the disadvantaged at the expense of the promotion and protection of their own interests and the status quo.

@ 27 Ben

“you’re missing my point. Somebody being on the correct side in an argument does not mean they’re eloquent, or rational, or have thought through their views, much as I wish it did.”

I have to agree with Galen. You’re either showing serious selective bias or you’ve been hanging out with some unrepresentatively stupid leftists.

It’s true that many (most) of us cry “ridiculous” when the Big Society is mentioned, but – and here’s the key part – we go on to explain WHY it’s ridiculous. The main reason being that, based on what he’s said so far, Cameron thinks that we can just rely on a huge, previously apathetic corps of volunteers to rise up and start working to compensate for the cuts. And that’s before anyone points out that he’s ACTIVELY FIGHTING THESE VOLUNTEERS by cutting subsidies to the voluntary sector too.

@31: “And that’s before anyone points out that he’s ACTIVELY FIGHTING THESE VOLUNTEERS by cutting subsidies to the voluntary sector too.”

Then we get that regular piece of sophistry that true charities don’t get subsidies out of public spending. But the trouble ahead is this:

Blow for Big Society as donations stall

“The amount of money people give to charity as a proportion of their spending has remained virtually unchanged for 30 years, research shows, raising more questions about how David Cameron’s Big Society will be funded. . .

“’The relative stability of charitable giving is both good and bad news for the sector,’ Prof Smith said. ‘It means charities can rely on donors even in times of recession. But it also indicates the huge scale of the challenge in raising the level of donations.’”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d6354a8a-393b-11e0-97ca-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1E9sNZF7y