The centrepiece of the Conservative manifesto, out today, is the pledge to promote a Big Society, which the Tories counter-pose to what they characterise as Labour’s Big State. The Big Society theme serves two electoral functions: first, it contrasts the Conservative approach with what they see as Labour’s inherent statism and, second, it is intended to contrast David Cameron’s Conservatives with Mrs Thatcher’s, who famously remarked that there was ‘no such thing as society’. All of this owes much to the self-proclaimed Red Tory Philip Blond.
These zero-sum arguments about ‘society versus the state’ actually obscure more than they reveal: Labour palpably does not believe in a ‘small society’, but rather thinks that a strong civil society requires active government. David Miliband made this point in a recent lecture, arguing rightly that withdrawing the state only empowers those who already have power.
Where Labour has erred is that it relied for far too long on centralised targets and initiatives to deliver public outcomes, and gave far too little latitude to local government and local services to develop their own solutions. It is not that the state is too big – but rather that it needs be reconfigured.
Moreover, if we study the policy detail of what the Conservatives propose there is an implicit recognition that voluntary and community action often needs public stimulus. So, they propose to recruit an army of neighbourhood community organisers and want a Big Society Bank to help voluntary and community organisations take on a larger role. These initiatives are good ones – but they are also about the state doing more or working differently rather than withdrawing or cutting back.
So both parties (and the Lib Dems) favour a more active civil society – but both need to answer the following big questions:
• How can grassroots community organisations take on more responsibility without losing the informal civic ethos that is their key attraction?
• Is it really feasible that important public goods can be delivered without bureaucratic rules and processes? These rules are generally a response to things that go terribly wrong, leading to the cry ‘this must never happen again’. This is why most ‘bonfires of red tape’ tend to fail – the public demands accountability, as well as less bureaucracy.
• Does the public want to be involved in the design and delivery of public services? Even if people have the motivation, do they have the time?
• What would have to be done to funding streams and commissioning models if this agenda were to be made a reality?
• Will this all cost more in the short run and if so how do we pay for it?
I am not suggesting that these problems cannot be overcome – I believe they can and our Capable Communities project is intended to help find the answers. But this is where the debate needs to be, rather than in a phoney war about the size of the state. The real issue is how the state can be reformed to do what it is supposed to do better and support the healthy civic society we all want to see.
Rick Muir
These zero-sum arguments about ‘society versus the state’ actually obscure more than they reveal: Labour palpably does not believe in a ‘small society’, but rather thinks that a strong civil society requires active government. David Miliband made this point in a recent lecture, arguing rightly that withdrawing the state only empowers those who already have power.
Where Labour has erred is that it relied for far too long on centralised targets and initiatives to deliver public outcomes, and gave far too little latitude to local government and local services to develop their own solutions. It is not that the state is too big – but rather that it needs be reconfigured.
Moreover, if we study the policy detail of what the Conservatives propose there is an implicit recognition that voluntary and community action often needs public stimulus. So, they propose to recruit an army of neighbourhood community organisers and want a Big Society Bank to help voluntary and community organisations take on a larger role. These initiatives are good ones – but they are also about the state doing more or working differently rather than withdrawing or cutting back.
So both parties (and the Lib Dems) favour a more active civil society – but both need to answer the following big questions:
• How can grassroots community organisations take on more responsibility without losing the informal civic ethos that is their key attraction?
• Is it really feasible that important public goods can be delivered without bureaucratic rules and processes? These rules are generally a response to things that go terribly wrong, leading to the cry ‘this must never happen again’. This is why most ‘bonfires of red tape’ tend to fail – the public demands accountability, as well as less bureaucracy.
• Does the public want to be involved in the design and delivery of public services? Even if people have the motivation, do they have the time?
• What would have to be done to funding streams and commissioning models if this agenda were to be made a reality?
• Will this all cost more in the short run and if so how do we pay for it?
I am not suggesting that these problems cannot be overcome – I believe they can and our Capable Communities project is intended to help find the answers. But this is where the debate needs to be, rather than in a phoney war about the size of the state. The real issue is how the state can be reformed to do what it is supposed to do better and support the healthy civic society we all want to see.
Rick Muir
No comments:
Post a Comment