The Big Society is a threat to Labour
Mark Littlewood 9:01am
If you think there really is a big idea behind the Big Society, then you agree with the
unlikely pairing of Jon Cruddas (Lab, Dagenham) and Jesse Norman (Con, Hereford). The latter's new book, The Big
Society: The Anatomy of the New Politics, attempts the seemingly impossible task of providing a grand philosophical narrative to underscore David Cameron's often amorphous rhetoric.
Cruddas and Norman debated at the Institute of Economic Affairs last night, alongside the IEA’s Professor Philip Booth and Dr Steve Davies. The ninety minute discussion did more to expose the philosophical fault lines in modern British politics than any public event I’ve attended since the General Election.
Jesse Norman is the sort of MP who gives even a cynic like me some hope about the future of our nation’s public life. He is independent minded, understands the value of ideas, is willing – indeed eager – to subject himself to fierce cross examination and has the charming ability to mix modesty with conviction. He thinks the Big Society concept is exciting, radical and transforming. It moves us beyond a tired rhetoric about the power relationship between the individual and the state to recognise the intrinsic social nature of humanity and the enormous value of voluntary institutions. He readily concedes that the Big Society is a “fuzzy” concept, but is insistent that it is not a vacuous one. In fact, he draws together an intriguing case that it is many ways the culmination of much traditional conservative thought and is thus a new idea with strong foundations.
To the surprise and excitement of much of the audience, Jon Cruddas thinks he might be right. This, he explained, was exactly the sort of territory and narrative that made him fear for the future of the left. If the centre-right started to understand how society worked rather than frame all their arguments in a “state versus individual” sort of fashion, then the existential threat to his side of the political divide was serious. Cruddas is not an archetypal socialist, he’s against the idea that lever–pullers in Whitehall think they can solve obesity problems in Dagenham. He’s yet to be convinced that the British left has grasped this.
Both Booth and Davies of the IEA struck a critical note. The Big Society rhetoric sounds fine, but it’s the shrinking of the state that provides the necessary space for civil society to flourish. There’s no amazing magic formula discovered by the Cameroons that suddenly enables the new government to use state mechanisms to pump an upsurge in civic responsibility. No doubt many of the outcomes desired by David Cameron and Jesse Norman would become viable and even flourish in a Britain with a radically reduced public sector, but the way to get there is as clear and simple as that – radically reduce the public sector.
I think the free market liberals are right. The overwhelming imperative of our times is to roll back the state. We can be entirely confident that private, voluntary activity won’t merely fill the void, but will expand beyond it in many, varied and brilliant ways we cannot even predict.
If you want to understand the new civic conservatism then Jesse Norman is the person you need to read and understand. But the really exciting thing is that these sort of exchanges of ideas are happening on the broad-based market-orientated “centre-right”. Jon Cruddas is right to realise how significant this is and the sort of threat it could pose his own political party’s prospects.
Mark Littlewood is director of Institute for Economic Affairs
Previous
Andy Leeds
November 25th, 2010 9:12am Report this commentWell yes. The trouble is no one in power is seriously interested in shrinking the size of the State. As John Redwood has pointed out the State will be spending just as much in cash terms at the end of this Parliament as at the beginning. That is hardly shrinking. And lets not even mention the damn EU.
Rhoda Klapp
November 25th, 2010 9:20am Report this commentWe could roll back the state. Then for an encore we'll repeal the law of gravity. One is as likely as the other.
Nicholas
November 25th, 2010 9:40am Report this comment"The overwhelming imperative of our times is to roll back the state."
And yet the impression I get is that everything the EU stands for is the exact opposite of that. In fact it rolls one layer of federal government and another layer of regional government over our heads (or has the coalition scrapped Prescott's Follies yet?)
Further, despite Cruddas who is not their leader, the resurgent Left are determined that the state should loom large in our lives once again (q.v. Milliband and Balls) and are aided in that endeavour by coalition weaknesses like Theresa May acquiescing to Harmon's Folly. Legitimate coalition reform is countered by vociferous and violent protest, emotive disruption and abuse of the spirit of the law (q.v. Toby Young). Even here at the CH we had some idiot likening Clegg to Quisling, as though the Tories were some invading fascist foreign power (behaviour I think more reminiscent of the last years of New Labour anyway) rather than the party with the largest number of MP's in Parliament - voted for by the people - and invited by the Head of State to form a legitimate government.
Imagining something is happening through an inspiring, rousing debate is somewhat different to making it happen - or neutralising those anti-democratic leftist extremists who don't want it to.
"Facta Non Verba"
toco
November 25th, 2010 9:50am Report this commentJesse Norman and Jon Cruddas represent the kind of thoughtful and sincere politicians we need to move away from the old style class ridden version which has so damaged this country.If politicians such as these two help others within their ranks to understand and connect with the vast majority of reasonable people in the UK then we shall all achieve a stronger and better society.
Alexander Pelling
November 25th, 2010 10:06am Report this commentAndy Leeds is right. They will not roll back the state until they are forced to do so by an economic crisis that dwarfs the present one. And in this context 'they' means all of them - Cameron, Clegg, Milliband, their acolytes and, eventually, their replacements - there is no real difference between them.
normanc
November 25th, 2010 10:10am Report this commentThe Big Society is nothing new. People will tend to their needs. Socialists believe that government is best placed to do this. Conservatives belief it is communities (or Society, if you prefer).
Since the Cameroons decided that conservatism was far too nasty a word to be associated with they wrapped it up in a ribbon and called it the 'Big Society'.
It's as simple as that. Why do people feel the need to write books explaining that is beyond me. Read Hume or Lock if you want a book on this stuff, it's neither new nor novel.
EyeSee
November 25th, 2010 10:36am Report this commentCruddas thinks it threatens his party? Well, he is right. He may try to claim that socialism is on the side of the little man, the poor individual, but in reality it is just a power mechanism. Socialism seeks only to evolve a state run society. This is clearest in the current endeavours of the EU as it desperately tries to enforce a system where citizens only exist to serve the state. Of course the natural state of affairs, the true position is that the 'state' was only brought into being to serve a society. This is why 'common law' as it existed in Britain before power was ceded to foreign government, was a law of the people a natural extension of the principle of a free people. As we have seen, the Labour Party seeks to draw power to itself and dole out money and favour at its whim. The people misled into rioting are really helping this system of government come about. They don't give two hoots about university fees or the poll tax, they dislike a government that serves the people, that releases power from the centre.
Colin
November 25th, 2010 10:56am Report this commentIf you want to roll back the state, you have to choke off it's sustenance, ie tax revenue.
If you want a big society, you need a smaller state. It's not rocket science.
Just another one of Davy Blah Blah's diversionary stunts...
Rhoda Klapp
November 25th, 2010 10:56am Report this commentnormanc, you have no business writing such stuff. don't you know it takes a think-tank, several MPs and a debate to get even half-way to such a conclusion? By chance they DO seem to have reached realisations which they could have read in CH comments any time since the 'policy' was announced. We must wait for them to catch up, poor lambs.
Robert Montyford
November 25th, 2010 12:39pm Report this commentSuggest you consult www.ukatone.com, for a practical implementation plan for 'BIG SOCIETY' + plus a few little extras like a new national 'high grade' communication network.
Cynic
November 25th, 2010 2:20pm Report this commentThe Big Society or the Big State? I know which one I'd prefer.
gordon-bennett
November 25th, 2010 7:37pm Report this commentAnyone who has seen "The Secret Millionaire" has seen the Big Society already in action.
During each episode in the CH4 series a millionaire makes contact with 4 or 5 organisations operating in Big Society mode and chooses to give them some money to help them out.
So there's already a lot of it about!
Major Plonquer 1
November 26th, 2010 1:27am Report this commentThe Internet and its systems and effects are already an existential issue for the left. The net brings power to the individual, devolves decision making and thought-leadership and makes it near impossible for authoritarians to be authoritarian. Just look at teh difference in numbers and traffic between the right-of-centre blogs such as this and the left-of-centre equivalents - there aren't any. Leftism doesn't work in a collective of free individuals such as the Internet.
In many ways the Internet IS the Big Society.
daniel maris
November 26th, 2010 2:03am Report this comment"We can be entirely confident that private, voluntary activity won’t merely fill the void, but will expand beyond it in many, varied and brilliant ways we cannot even predict"
Ha-ha-ha....hahahahh!!! tee-hee!!!!
Stop it...it's hurting...
You cannot be serious...
Our professions have difficulty enough acting professionally. Charities are notoriously inefficient bodies. Do you really, really think that the private voluntary secotr is going to step in and make good cuts?
Dream on.
Fergus Pickering
November 26th, 2010 10:02am Report this commentdaniel maris, are charities REALLY less efficient than government departments? Surely the competition between them would mean that they couldn't be.
paulg
December 2nd, 2010 9:35pm Report this commentYou did not give us a link to Jesse Norman, if we knew what he was saying we could comment on his ideas - it might end up as socialism, but you have to take the rough with the smooth
Back to top