Labour and the 'big society' 

Recently Prime Minister David Cameron MP was involved in a vigorous 're-launch’ of his ‘Big Society’ initiative. In a series of press articles he re-articulated his vision of great civic involvement and social concern with an explicit emphasis upon relying less on the state. Whatever one thinks of this idea my view is that in some form the ‘Big Society’ (not a new idea) and the related debate on Localism could remain within political debate for some time, even if they influence and foster related ideas in other parties.

 

My concern initially as a Labour Party member and self-confessed fan of the ‘Big Society’ (and localism) was that Labour appeared to be a little unimaginative in their response. I detect now the centre-left response becoming more thoughtful and that could, in the long-term be interesting. For, in many ways it echoes the values and energy that inspired and defined Labour when it first was formed.

 

‘The Conservatives have seized Labour’s language with their vision of a ‘big society’ – and not only its language but its history’

 

‘The Tories seize Labour’s language’, Dr Maurice Glasman, The New Statesman, 19 August 2010)

 

I suspect that for those involved in politics, the themes of ‘localism’ and ‘civic social involvement’ may not go away, as they could filter into Labour thinking. There are a number of challenges and hurdles of course to these concepts. Immediately, these are, I believe, within the Conservative Party seen through the lens of a possible tension between ‘economic’ conservatism and a more ‘social’ conservatism. Within the Labour Party there is a potential debate located within differing views with the Labour Party on the role of the state. To use rudimentary language, the differences between ‘statists’ and the ‘localists’.

 

Of course there will be questions within the Conservative Party on how much appetite there is for the ‘Big Society’ agenda. Indeed, as alluded to above, there might be tensions within the Conservative Party as the agenda develops. There could be a difference of opinion between those in the Conservative Party, who believe the state should be re-engineered for economic growth (economic or fiscal Conservative’s) and those who have a more clear civic and social agenda (social Conservative’s). A potential indication of this debate could be detected in a recent article looking ahead to the forthcoming budget of 25 March (‘Osborne Rips up Planning Rules’, http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/osborne-rips-planning-rules, City AM, 4 March 2011). Recently, City AM was hinting that the Chancellor desires more relaxed planning laws predicated on pro-growth assumptions. One might ask how does this square with localism? We shall see, but it is on these tests that policies are developed, trimmed back or even discarded.

 

Nonetheless, it is far too early to write-off this agenda and its impact across politics. It might help to clarify what we are actually discussing. What is the ‘Big Society’? I think it is quite easy to understand, if you really want to understand it. It suggests to me that the state and the market are not the only forces within our ‘universe’. There is something called ‘civic society’ as well. The state cannot be the only mode of delivering public services, delivering social justice and constructing community. The state is vitally important, but not the sole agency to achieve these goods. Well, the truth is that this insight is not new, it is not David Cameron’s invention, nor is it the sole preserve of the Conservative Party. In fact, we are talking about civic society, which has a strong tradition in the UK. It was rooted in churches, co-operatives, mutual, volunteering and trade unions and originally was strong within the early Labour Party. Whilst Labour has lost sight of these once cherished traditions some of the criticisms of their record on civil society and the state have been a little caricatured at times.

 

The ‘Big Society’ has been criticised as merely providing a shield for the Coalition’s quest to cut the fiscal deficit. Well, I, for one, am not convinced by this assertion.  Perhaps, for some it provides a justification for cuts but I find it a rather cynical position to take. Indeed, in his own defence the Prime Minister has stated that his interest in this agenda preceded the fiscal crisis and the implementation of cuts. This strikes me as a credible proposition. Indeed, in a recent debate in the House of Commons, this point was re-iterated by the Conservative MP for Dover, Charlie Elphicke.

 

Charlie Elphicke MP, House of Commons, 28 Feb 2011

 

Furthermore, Labour MP, Jon Cruddas makes this point.

 

‘Moreover, I resist the simple notion that the big society is a sham and simply a veneer for ideologically driven cuts, not least because, as the hon. Member for Dover said, the Prime Minister's attachment to that agenda predates the economic crisis and the onset of the cuts..’

 

He proceeded to comment that elements of this agenda might lead to social change.

 

Jon Cruddas MP, House of Commons, 28 Feb 2011

 

His later comments, pointed out the apparent flaws in the agenda and how the ‘Big Society’ might not translate into reality. Mr Cruddas is one of Labour’s more independent thinkers but the point is well made.

 

The ‘Big Society’, however it turns out (and I suspect we do not know) should allow the Labour Party an opportunity to reflect on how it re-connects and renews itself. To ponder on how far it has strayed from its roots in local communities and emergence from locally organised bodies. Furthermore, Labour should also re-appraise its late Twentieth Century attachment to the state. This does not need nor would result in a neo-liberal view of the small state but a more nuanced appraisal of the limits of the state. Indeed, and ironically for Labour, the state can prove tyrannical for working people and synonymous with bureaucracies supposedly run for ‘the people’ yet prove to serve other agendas. Michael Young’s work in the East End was fascinating, as it sought to understand why the welfare state actually never really fitted with the working-class sense of family and solidarity that had existed in the East End prior to World Ward two. This was a left and ‘localist’ argument, not a right-wing one. It is tragic that we have lost a notion of the value of such things that I have to make this point. In particular, Labour has to look long and hard at some of the problems that the state is associated with and now is the time to do so. It might be too early to suggest that these things will change but a small change in thinking might be happening, yet the ‘statist’ instincts are strong on the left.

 

The best response that Labour can make to some of these questions about civic society and limits of the state (and the market) is by developing its own narrative on ‘Big Society’ and Localism (they are related). I can detect signs that in some quarters, Labour is making thoughtful criticisms of the ‘Big Society’ agenda. For example this is manifest in pointing to the cuts that are being to bite into the organisations who oversee voluntary work that sustain the ‘Big Society'. Furthermore and a related point is the acknowledgement that there is a human and common sense limit to the scale and capacity of volunteering. If we are fortunate to have time to volunteer, we usually have to prioritise our time to the causes and charities and organisations that are dear to our heart.  Thus, in articulating a vision for a ‘Good Society’ there is space for Labour to embark on some serious reflection and radical thinking.

 

I hope that in engaging with this agenda, Labour begins to cherish civic society again and develop and foster those institutions which empower ordinary people. A Labour response to the ‘Big Society’ and ‘Localism’, in whatever form it takes could realistically and effectively be developed. Certainly, we don't know how this debate will fare. Within five years the ‘Big Society’ and ‘Localism’ debates might well be within a different place. My instinct is that they might trigger off interesting initiatives in differing contexts. Indeed in responding to this question perhaps the Labour Party could develop a more committed and long-term response to this question?

 

 

Tristram Hunt MP, House of Commons 28 February 2011.