“For decades, workers have been accustomed to doing as they are told by bosses. So why expect them to suddenly have the initiative and organizational skills to run libraries and public services? And years of narcissistic individualist consumerism have weakened whatever link there was between wealth and public spirit.”

I think that this is perhaps the biggest weakness in the Big Society plan. The culture of volunteering that used to exist in this country isn’t there any more (plus, and please correct me if I’m wrong, the wealthy middle classes who might have participated in the past seem to work longer hours these days and therefore just don’t have the time). It may be that withdrawing the state is the only way of reviving it but it won’t be an instant process.

And years of narcissistic individualist consumerism have weakened whatever link there was between wealth and public spirit.

That’s hardly the consequence of consumerism, but the outsourcing of social responsibility to the State. For example, I’m sure most people in Britain don’t own a snow shovel and wouldn’t know what to do with it even if they did. Think about that the next time you slip on an icy pavement outside someone’s house. It’s the council’s job to clear the streets, innit?

“It may be that withdrawing the state is the only way of reviving it but it won’t be an instant process.”

Yeah I think your on to something there. If this was a long term plan, with an obvious roadmap for achieving it – it could be a viable vision. The problem many have with BS is that it is seen as a PR strategy to cover for cuts, and the speed with which it is expected to emerge is just bonkers.

Its worth pointing out the labour party approach of building the sector slowly with capacity building (i.e the state pays for training community development workers in things like fundraising) was far more likely to yield long term results this way.

2. Scooby

You’re right, but that’s not to do with the link between wealth and public spirit, it’s to do with the link between community and public spirit, or something like that.

I think the OP is talking more about the culture of firms and private investors being driven by profit and very little else. For example, there really was a time when layoffs were seen as a sign of failure, or at least as a last-ditch option. Now they’re just good business practice.

I’m not convinced that Cameron is in touch with the amount of volunary work taking place. The NHS might be the biggest employer in Europe but it also benefits from, arguably, the highest number of volunteers,
Most Citizens Advice Bureau are run by volunteers and most of it’s funding is from private sources.
Up and down the country the WI are organizing events and creating articles for sale. and red nose day seems to attract hundreds of volunteers to raise money, Student rag days are still evident and the Round Table seem to be constantly putting one events to raise money.
Several members of the TA were also sent into Iraq including medical staff. I’m sure the list is much longer, it seems that because these volunteers are not very visible then they do not exist.

@5 steveb

The volunteers are already volunteering. That’s not really surprising, is it? My experience as one who suffers from volunteerism is that those who aren’t doing, won’t do.

You’re right, but that’s not to do with the link between wealth and public spirit, it’s to do with the link between community and public spirit, or something like that.

I think using the catch-all term “consumerism” in the OP is lazy and misleading. There’s nothing wrong with raising living standards and having an economy that allows people to consume more of what they want when they want it.

I do think that the idea historically pushed by the Left that the State is the natural and proper agent to express the innate solidarity we all sometimes feel towards others has a lot to do with the dire situation in Britain. But I also think that the rampant “I’m alright Jack” capitalism pushed by the Tories and their cothinkers over the last few decades is just as responsible for dissolving communal bonds.

I’d also point out that when workers are told what to do by their bosses and gradually lose the ability to act independently, it’s worth remembering that for unprecedentedly large numbers of people, that boss is a state bureaucrat. So increasing the reach of the State to compensate would backfire, wouldn’t it?

@ 7

Hang on. You haven’t given a reason why the state should be worse than any other employer. And while having to do what your boss says may sap your initiative (which is only a theory), surely it’s better to have a job than none.

When I agreed that the existence of the state was sapping initiative, I meant that we’re used to councils sorting out icy roads and the like on our behalf, so we’re less likely to do the graft ourselves. But we’re still getting it done at one remove – paying for it rather than doing it. It’s a shame that we’ve lost that sense of community drive, but it’s a side effect of something that does a lot of good.

I work for an organisation which was explicitly held up by Cameron as an example of the Big Society in action. We work with hundreds of volunteers, but just a year after the election many of us are facing redundancy because the local government funding that partially sustained us. We haven’t been able to get anything from philanthropic sources or from alternative sources despite the fact that we couldn’t be more high profile.

Volunteers don’t do anything in isolation. To have them going off doing things without training, guidance and supervision would be asking for trouble. The less paid staff you have, the less volunteers you can have. Local government money is gone. Other funding is scarce. So to reiterate the main criticism of the Big Society (and it’s essential enough that it deserves reiterating at many opportunity): where is the money coming from?

There’s another consideration. The sad fact is that not everyone who wants to volunteer is suitable for the roles they’re interested in. Some people can’t manage the time commitment, others find they have emotional issues of their own that are brought up by the work they do… there’s plenty of reasons. Part of the reason that the volunteering we do is effective is because the service users appreciate that they are volunteers, not paid professionals. That counts for a lot. If we’re going to have volunteering as the norm, then this is diminished somewhat. The fact that most people don’t do it is part of why it is so valuable.

I fear here that Cameron has fallen victim to the availability heuristic. He looked at his own family and acquaintances and saw many social entrepreneurs, millionaire philanthropists and rich men’s wives looking for a role, and forgot that these were not typical of the country.

It’s not that, I don’t think; Cameron isn’t stupid. But he is far too in thrall to the ‘nudge’ idea – this sense that citing a couple of examples will inspire everyone to think about doing the same thing, and correspondingly following the lead (or alternatively, voting Tory). Witness, for example, the way almost every high-profile Tory attached themselves to Ray Lewis’s institution. And nowhere else. There’s no real evidence for much of this stuff already happening outside of ultra-high-profile examples.

The other problem is that the precise models he wanted people to follow are going to be destroyed by his cuts.

The big society would have been a great idea about 4 years ago. but now that everyone’s in fear for their jobs, and have had to accept pay cuts or been made redundant, the last thing they want to do is spend their spare time volunteering. what sounded appealing to the middle classes four years ago – volunteer to run a school, say, – looks a bit less appealing when a previously stay-at-home mum now has to work in Tesco to pay the bills.

“Hence the belief that shrinking the state would allow society to expand.

>But it turns out that this is too simple. Charities are enormously dependent upon state funding.”

Shrinking the state may allow society to expand, certainly the state has crowded out social solutions, (mutuals etc.). However, if a “charity” is “enormously dependent on state funding” then it is not what we normally consider, (as opposed to the current legal definition), to be a charity. Instead it becomes a tax paid provider of services that we have decided, (or various wonks have decided), that the state should provide. Charities in the ordinary sense would benefit most from the shrinking of the state and lower taxes so that people had more surplus to give to those causes that they support.

Hang on. You haven’t given a reason why the state should be worse than any other employer.

You haven’t given a reason why the state should be any better. I didn’t suggest the state was worse, I questioned why the focus in the OP was on private-sector bosses when in large parts of the UK, they are rather scarce in comparison to public-sector bosses, who don’t even merit a mention in the OP.

When I agreed that the existence of the state was sapping initiative, I meant that we’re used to councils sorting out icy roads and the like on our behalf, so we’re less likely to do the graft ourselves. But we’re still getting it done at one remove – paying for it rather than doing it. It’s a shame that we’ve lost that sense of community drive, but it’s a side effect of something that does a lot of good.

Reminds me of that case a few years ago where some old lady had been lying dead in her council home for a year before anyone noticed. Despite her having some dozen of more grandchildren, her family complained that nobody from the council had notified them of a problem with her.

If you want to live in a society where the elementary bonds of compassion are exercised “at one remove” by a bureaucrat punching a nine-to-four clock with no personal interest whatsoever in a “client’s” welfare, that’s fine. To each his own. I’m glad I moved a long way away from such a society to one where people still take an interest in their neighbors, don’t whine that having to look after elderly relatives is a Tory plot to undermine the welfare state, and — yes — clear the snow from the pavement outside their homes so strangers don’t slip on ice instead of sitting on their arses and moaning that their council tax doesn’t seem to pay for much of a service nowadays.

There are already hundreds of thousands of ordinary people doing voluntary work in this country. To suggest that they aren’t is to insult a group of very generous and public spirited citizens. But they cannot do this work if the organisations with which they work are starved of funds. When a CAB branch closes, for example, paid staff lose their jobs and volunteers are left with nowhere to offer help to those who desperately need it. The state facilitated the big society, and these cruel cuts, by attacking the state, have instead disabled it.

During last year’s cold snap I was spreading some of the grit I had arranged to be dropped by the county council with a couple of neighbours. Several people walked past, congratulating us on our efforts. That, to me, sums up the BS. Whether the unwillingness of people to join in is due to the state or other factors is moot.

When we carried out a recent survey we managed to recruit a few dozen volunteers to help design the survey and distribute questionnaires. That must be the biggest number of volunteers we have ever had. The results of the questionnaire suggested that as a council we should facilitate a number of clubs. The next question asked for anyone who would be able to help with running a club. Nobody put themeselves forward.

This survey was before the current crisis, so why should things be better now? We have worse job security and an increasing cost of living. People are working longer hours. They don’t have the time or energy to do more.

@ 12 Scooby

“You haven’t given a reason why the state should be any better.”

I’m not saying it is! Common wisdom (which obviously is subject to doubt) says that state employers tend to be better for their employees, but whether that’s a good thing for the taxpayer is another question entirely.

“I didn’t suggest the state was worse, I questioned why the focus in the OP was on private-sector bosses when in large parts of the UK, they are rather scarce in comparison to public-sector bosses, who don’t even merit a mention in the OP.”

Is the focus on private-sector bosses? The line you quoted just says “bosses”.

“Reminds me of that case a few years ago where some old lady had been lying dead in her council home for a year before anyone noticed. Despite her having some dozen of more grandchildren, her family complained that nobody from the council had notified them of a problem with her.

If you want to live in a society where the elementary bonds of compassion are exercised “at one remove” by a bureaucrat punching a nine-to-four clock with no personal interest whatsoever in a “client’s” welfare, that’s fine. To each his own. I’m glad I moved a long way away from such a society to one where people still take an interest in their neighbors, don’t whine that having to look after elderly relatives is a Tory plot to undermine the welfare state, and — yes — clear the snow from the pavement outside their homes so strangers don’t slip on ice instead of sitting on their arses and moaning that their council tax doesn’t seem to pay for much of a service nowadays.”

But I assume you aren’t literally in favour of forcing people to look after their relatives. So if that woman’s family relied on the council to support her, who’s to say they would have got involved themselves were the safety net not there? A neighbour? Well, hopefully, but if not? Nobody. That’s what happens when you remove the safety net.

When you say “If you want to live in a society where the elementary bonds of compassion are exercised “at one remove” by a bureaucrat punching a nine-to-four clock with no personal interest whatsoever in a “client’s” welfare, that’s fine”, you seem to assume that having a welfare state means people stop caring for each other, which doesn’t make sense.

Of course it would be preferable for people to be looked after by those who genuinely cared for them, but you can’t make that happen just by removing the welfare state. I’m proud to live in a country that – up until now at least – provides a safety net for the vulnerable rather than leaving them to fend for themselves if their family aren’t around and they aren’t popular with the locals.

Charities are enormously dependent upon state funding.

But this is a relatively recent phenomenon.

They used to be real charities and the fact that government has subverted their raison d’etre is utterly deplorable.

It may be that withdrawing the state is the only way of reviving it but it won’t be an instant process

Planeshift is correct that, given the infantilisation of our citizens, recreating our society and our communities is likely to take several generations but, until the state gets out of the way, the process can’t begin.

CD: “Libertarians, and many non-libertarian Tories, have often thought that – except for a few minimal duties for the state – the two are substitutes, that the state crowds out voluntary or market provision.”

That was certainly the position taken by HM Treasury in the 1930s in response to Keynes’s proposals for government spending on public works to reduce unemployment and the Treasury view prevailed through Macdonald’s Labour government of 1929-31 into the rest of 1930s.

However, compared with the American economy and much of western Europe, the British economy – or the southern part of it – was relatively prosperous as the result of the incoming national government taking Sterling off the gold standard in September 1931.

The exchange rate floated down and the Bank of England was able to cut interest rates. The Bank of England’s base rate was cut by increments from a high point of 6% in the last weeks of September 1931 down to 2% at the end of June 1932 where it stayed until the outbreak of war:
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/rates/baserate.pdf

The result of low interest rates was a boom in speculative house building but mostly in London, the south east and the midlands. High unemployment persisted in northern England, Wales and much of Scotland.

Btw it’s important to note that Adam Smith in his seminal text The Wealth of Nations (1776) didn’t go along with the notion of public spending crowding out private spending but instead regarded public spending as potentially funding worthwhile projects which wouldn’t be financed by the private sector because they were not expected to be sufficiently profitable:

“The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which, though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, and which it therefore cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain.” [The Wealth of Nations (1776), Book 5, Chapter 1, Part 3.]
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/smith/wealth/wealbk05

I’ve never met a person more terrifying that Mr Blond. That said, I haven’t met any of the Cabinet yet.

You forgot to mention that Cameron clearly doesn’t give a shit about society, ‘big’ or otherwise. It was some bollocks he conjured up for the media (and it’s not quite working, but they’re still wasting column inches on it as if it’s some meaningful policy). He doesn’t care if voluntary organisations or any other services live or die. He’d probably prefer for them to wither away, so any remaining ‘public’ space can be occupied by his tax-dodging chums in the private sector.

Nor does Osborne ‘care’ about economic recovery. He just want his obscenely wealthy chums to avoid tax, and leave the rest of us to scramble for the remaining scraps. It’s not even Thatcherism really. It’s Dick Cheney economics. Unlike Brown, Osborne makes hardly any attempt to justify his economic strategy – he merely smirks to himself that he’s getting away with it.

Unlike even Blair or Thatcher, this cabinet doesn’t have any ‘convictions’ (maybe apart from ‘Christian’ half-wits like IDS). Most of them have direct financial interest in their policies, and I doubt the repercussions of their policies mean much to them. I’m not even sure they care that much about winning another election. The useful idiots in the Lib Dems and the suburban nimbies who voted for them have sereved their purpose. There’s no indication that the Tories will reward either for their services. They’d have made enough money and career opportunities for themselves by 2015.

Sometimes, interpreting a government’s motives can be very simple.

Wait a minute though. People here are saying that rolling back the State will somehow magically encourage the Third Sector to stiffen their collective sinews and fill the void. In fact, there are some here that are even going as far to say that the State’s intervention has somehow stuffed out areas of the third sector, but that is obvious bullshit.

If the third sector is willing to run a library for example, then what the fuck is stopping them? Is it illegal to hire out books if you are not owned by the State? I accept that you would need to accommodate the ‘Public Lending Rights’ issue, but if a couple of guys here want to run a charitable library, what difference does it make to them if the State is already doing so?

If your motivation is to ‘improve society’ then surely to Christ you can do this irrespective of what the council provides? Why all this ‘Ohhh, the oppressive State, it is sucking our lifeblood and our desire to do good, from us’ nonsense? You think the third sector could provide better services than the evil empire that you hate so much, then, what about this for a radical idea? Prove us wrong. If you think you can provide a better system for keeping the unemployed from starvation, then why not just do it? Why tell us it CAN be done and simply get out there and do it? If ‘two systems’ are running in parallel, then what of it? Your volunteering will have ‘improved’ society by no end.

Except, of course, it is not about ‘improving’ society, is it? The ‘Big Society’ was never about ‘improving society’. The same bastards that told us the ‘Big Society’ would ‘improve society’ where the same people that told slashing and burning whole regions and giving the proceeds to the newly formed battalions of yuppies would ‘improve society’ as well. We are now expected to believe that the man who joined the ‘Greed is Good’ Party in the Eighties has suffered serve pangs of conscience and is now harking back to ‘One Nation’ Conservatism?

By the way, the system that whacked seven shades of shit out of mutuals was Thatcherism. Remember all those carpet braggers depositing money into unsuspecting building societies before voting for them to be turned into banks? Yes, not exactly the ‘Big society’ there, eh? No just lining there own fucking pockets in the short term and leaving us with a corrupt banking system in the mean time. Fast forward from all those demutualised building societies and follow them now, eh?

Pagar @ 16

Planeshift is correct that, given the infantilisation of our citizens, recreating our society and our communities is likely to take several generations but, until the state gets out of the way, the process can’t begin.

Is that what you really think, Pagar? You really want to ‘re’-create our society? ‘Recreate’ what, exactly. ‘Re-create’ a Pre War, pre Welfare State? Are you simply not aware that the reason the people demanded that the State got involved in sorting out the Country was simply because for the vast majority of people, conditions were simply awful?

Are you really telling me that people living in squalor is somehow better than someone getting money of the dole? Are you really telling me that child prostitution was somehow morally better than a child getting an xbox of the State?

You know, no matter how bad our current society gets, it would have to be a pretty dire state before I would welcome back cholera and street walking ten year old as opposed to anything else.

But that is just me

I ask again, Pagar. Can you show me a country where the State has failed where you can point to this uptopia rising? If you can, why are you not living there?

Big society was a smokescreen for the cuts to pick up the slack.

But they really dont understand how charities are meant to survive with less or zero funding, as well as run services that cost tax payers £m’s to run per year WITH huge buying power to reduce to this figure.

The big society is a mish mash of mixed ideas/ideals all being taken at the same time without any testing of the waters first. Instead we’ve said a short prayer and jumped straight into the centre of the Atlantic during a hurricane.

Most government projects fail as it is.

@20 Jim

“If the third sector is willing to run a library for example, then what the fuck is stopping them?”

The fact that at the moment there are still plenty of state run libraries means that currently there is no requirement for charity run libraries may have something to do with it.

When libraries are closed perhaps a charity will step in to run a library, assuming they can get charitable donations from those who believe libraries are a good thing. I personally do not think libraries are a good use of my cash, though I would donate books. At least I would have more choice over how my money was spent.

The BIG SOCIETY idea was just an electoral campaign gimmick that has served its purpose. When this Coalition has finished there will be nothing left, except a Divided and Broken Britain. Only then the people/nation will throw out his Coalition of Misery, then you will have the Big Society, putting right everything that this Coalition of Deceit and Hate has Broken/Destroyed.

let’s not imagine it’s been a wonderful time for society over the last 5 or 17 years either.

Anecdotal evidence – a chap I know started a KidsClub in town, run by volunteers. Saturday mornings – even bussing kids in from the poorer estates on the edge of town.
100% self-funded, no tax payer money.

After 3 or 4 years Chris set up a meeting with the council.
Kids Club had more kids going weekly than all the council run clubs put together, with their paid staff etc

Given that success, Chris asked if the council could contribute to just the mini-bus running costs.

Answer, no. Don’t have a budget for that.

@ Jim

Are you simply not aware that the reason the people demanded that the State got involved in sorting out the Country was simply because for the vast majority of people, conditions were simply awful?

But that’s not how it happened, Jim, nobody demanded the state got involved.

Self serving politicians realised they could control the population and the political agenda by promising security in lieu of freedom and most people bought into it. And because wealth has increased exponentially over the last century, they could appear to deliver.

Happily, those days are over.

For international comparative data on General Government Expenditures/Revenues for OECD countries as percentages of national GDP 1995-2008, try this link:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/3010061ec073.pdf?expires=1297208476&id=0000&accname=freeContent&checksum=8825BF7A1406666E3C7ACF8BF0176287

It is a constant source of amusement to me that a collection of wannabe Guardian collumnists, almost universally without responsibilties or real jobs are apt to talk about “Being in touch”.
Amongst working people there is no overwhelming problem.In fact, like any class room, all the energy of society is sucked towards a infantilised underclass sustained by welfare in which the most basic units of society have ceased to function
Working people may or may not “organise Libraries “( how delightfully sepia tinted is that charming thought ) but they do organise football teams , the ubiquitous community celebrations of birthdays, meet in pubs, share school trips child care and help eachother out.
All of this non state and family centered activity is much easier in monocultural areas where the family “foreign policy” can operate with knowledge and trust .And so life goes on, when not subject to the wilful vandalism of New Labour sponsored atomising projects or demoralised by the all too obvious contempt in which working people are held by the Fabian element

Mean while on vast estates like the Andover in Islington or in the horrifying wastelands of South Wales ( behind the swanky bistros and pointless state developments ) life , for some has gone backwards to the point,or so it seems to me, that the erosion of social ties by the state has bred a species of mental illness .
Here the “Throw money at it” experiment has been tested to destruction and frankly almost any other approach would be better. Cameron has always made it clear that reversing multi generational problems was not a quick job and the big society is more a hope than a specific set of policies. It does , however focus minds on the tendency New Labour had to worry about everything except the things that make life worth living for ordinary people I am indebted to David Milliband for that phrase . A pity his heroic efforts to drag New Labour into the present were so tragically undone by Union money.

Not sure this Big Society thing is fully understood ? I see it as more volunteers will be needed to replace the vast number of paid people who are employed by charities at present. If this big society thing is to work at all, present day chief executives are really going to have to work for their huge salaries. If that’s a class issue, I’m feeling guilty ! ……….(not really, only kidding)

Cameron’s Big Society & Munich speech nonsense.The actions simply do not match the words. English language & advice support for Refugees is slashed at a time when Cameron says he want an integrated culture and all children to speak English. He is caught between the contradictions of his soundbites. You can learn more by looking at the things he DOESN’T talk about, rather than the things he does. See the full article at Open Democracy http://bit.ly/ecYn8A

Fungus @ 23

The fact that at the moment there are still plenty of state run libraries means that currently there is no requirement for charity run libraries may have something to do with it.

So what? What does it matter if there are State run libraries? If NGOs want to run libraries what is stopping them? I don’t understand what is stopping the proponents of the ‘big society’ running parallel services? If they feel that can ‘improve society’ via their intervention, what is stopping them? Why do they need a slogan?

I personally do not think libraries are a good use of my cash

Now I am begining to understand though. The ‘Big Society’ is little more than a smokescreen for selfish Tories to stop paying for things that they see no value in, or if they do see a value in then it would be better if others paid for them.

The ‘Big Society’ is about Tory greed? The man who worked for ‘if it isn’t hurting, it isn’t working’ is trying to cut the tax for the rich and the poor can fuck off. Well I never!

Pagar @ 26

Self serving politicians realised they could control the population and the political agenda by promising security in lieu of freedom and most people bought into it. And because wealth has increased exponentially over the last century, they could appear to deliver.

Pagar, you come across as an intelligent bloke and I realise that this may come as a feeble attempt to patronise you, I can assure you it is not, but what age are you? Do you seriously think that our society blinked into existence an the year 19XX without any fanfare, only for it to blink back out again two seconds after you die?

Can you really be that naïve as to think that none of the event we talk about the Jarrow marches, the General Strike et al never really happened? Can you really be blind to the fact that millions of people lived in absolute squalor before and after the Second World War? You seriously expect everyone here to believe that the post War reforms were a bid to control the masses and that the War weary people were quite happy with their lot?

You really think that Western Europe’s post war living standards had nothing to do with State intervention at even some levels.

I know that as a Libertarian, you feel you have the right to absorb or discard any facts you see fit, but you cannot simply poke you eyes out, merely because you don’t like what you are seeing.

Cameron is an intellectual lightweight. He made up the title “Big Society” before he had an idea of what it was. The Big Society was never going to be anything more than a rebranding of public sector cuts.

“Are you really telling me that people living in squalor is somehow better than someone getting money of the dole?”

People lived in squalor back then because we were all poorer. Being poor today is preferable to being rich in Victorian England.

“Do you seriously think that our society blinked into existence an the year 19XX without any fanfare, only for it to blink back out again two seconds after you die?”

When the first national insurance schemes were being introduced there was a great deal of working class opposition. They didn’t want their mutual insurance societies being undermined or controlled by the government.

@23

“The fact that at the moment there are still plenty of state run libraries means that currently there is no requirement for charity run libraries may have something to do with it.

When libraries are closed perhaps a charity will step in to run a library, assuming they can get charitable donations from those who believe libraries are a good thing. I personally do not think libraries are a good use of my cash, though I would donate books. At least I would have more choice over how my money was spent”

The libraries aren’t “state-owned” though, are they? They are owned and operated by local authorities. Nice misrepresentation there.

This belief that some charities will come along and snap up these local libraries is a fantasy.

This is 2011 not 1841.

Why not close all the libraries and then all of the ex employees who are receiving unemployment benefit can run the libraries voluntarily – no cost to the tax-payer, oh wait a minute

Can one of our resident Tories explain something to me please?

It looks to me as if the ‘Big Society’ model of public service provision has been given a pretty fair crack of the whip over the millennia. For most of history, most people have been reliant for most public services on charities, churches, community groups, trade unions, wealthy philanthropists etc.

Result: patchy provision of inadequate, sticking-plaster services, often with strings attached. The richest people in society did very nicely in relative terms, since they could afford to pay privately for medical care, education, well-kept homes and gardens, books, decent sanitation, childcare, arts and sports facilities, and so on; everyone else lived generally wretched lives, with the ‘Big Society’ managing to do no more than give some of them, some of the time, some limited access to some of those things.

Then someone had a wacky idea: instead of entrusting provision of public services to a pachwork of groups consisting mainly of untrained, unpaid volunteers, why not entrust it to local and national democratic institutions with the power to raise the revenue needed to put an infrastructure in place for provision of those services, and to pay suitably-qualified people to provide them to a decent standard?

Result: within a few decades, the lives of all but the richest people has improved beyond all recognition. In every community there are hospitals, doctors’ surgeries, schools, libraries, museums, parks and playgrounds, sports and arts facilities etc., all accessible to everyone. Everyone has recourse to the law, everyone’s rubbish gets collected, everyone knows some financial provision has been made for their old age, etc etc etc.

Yet we’re supposed to believe that all this governmental ‘interference’ is somehow standing in the way of those charities, churches, community groups, trade unions, wealthy philanthropists etc providing better, cheaper services. Why on earth should we believe such a thing? What is the official Tory narrative here?

(The *un*official narrative is clear enough: the rich used to enjoy private healthcare, education, sports and art facilities etc etc AND pay very little tax. Now they still have their private services, but they’re also paying for the oiks to have access to similar services. Obviously they would rather the oiks ran their own services for free or at as low a cost as possible, since they benefit from low taxes but don’t really lose out if oik-directed services get worse.)

You really think that Western Europe’s post war living standards had nothing to do with State intervention at even some levels

Not at all. I think that the state intervention we have endured has held down growth and living standards for everyone.

If you doubt this, compare our relative lack of growth in wealth and living standards over the period compared to say Hong Kong or Singapore.

@ 38 pagar

As anyone with an ounce of sense would be able to figure out, that’s a monstrous simplification. The idea that no, or even “much less” state intervention would have made us all richer, is simply that..an idea; whether it’s true or not is a different matter.

Similarly, the concept that we’d all be better off being like Singapore or Hong Kong is not obvious; even if these places are directly comparable with the UK (and it’s pretty obvious to anyone they aren’t), it’s also worth noting that Singapore is effectively a one party state…. not a model I’d fancy importing!

@ 37 GO

“(The *un*official narrative is clear enough: the rich used to enjoy private healthcare, education, sports and art facilities etc etc AND pay very little tax. Now they still have their private services, but they’re also paying for the oiks to have access to similar services. Obviously they would rather the oiks ran their own services for free or at as low a cost as possible, since they benefit from low taxes but don’t really lose out if oik-directed services get worse.)”

Hear, hear! This epitaph for the Big Society should be nailed to the door of every Conservative club and MP’s office in the land….and if necessary stapled to the forehead of every Tory and libertairian who bangs on about what a great idea the Big Society is!

“Planeshift is correct that, given the infantilisation of our citizens, recreating our society and our communities is likely to take several generations but, until the state gets out of the way, the process can’t begin.”

And if you do it the wrong way, then the collatoral damage will be immense. The historical track record of attempts to recreate society is appalling, and any party proposing to do so should be treated with extreme caution.

Realistically there are at least 3 services that even minarchists have to accept are going to continue to be funded by the state (although I accept they want radically different delivery models) – criminal justice (courts, prisons, police etc), health, and education.

The cost of these services though is going to vary hugely depending on the health levels, crime levels etc. So libertarians/minarchists should really be focusing on how you keep a population healthy, crime levels low etc whilst you cut the other bits of the state – and this may involve accepting initial high state spending. After all, most profitable companies make losses when they start up and expand – and the biggest ones usually burn through shit loads of venture capital on their journey. I’m more interested in the journey you libertarians are proposing than the destination, particularly as you concede the journey is going to take decades.

“All of this non state and family centered activity is much easier in monocultural areas ……

…Mean while on vast estates like the Andover in Islington or in the horrifying wastelands of South Wales”

Nice try, but the “wastelands” of south wales (the valleys) are all pretty much white, and the state involvement has also been limited to benefits payments until 10 years ago when minimal investment started to happen following devolution.

@ Gallen

The idea that no, or even “much less” state intervention would have made us all richer, is simply that..an idea; whether it’s true or not is a different matter.

Hong Kong’s gross domestic product, between 1961 and 1997, has grown 180 times while per capita GDP rose by 87 times. Its economy size is slightly bigger than Israel and Czech Republic and its GDP per capita at purchasing power parity is the 7th highest globally.

Positive non-interventionism was the economic policy of Hong Kong during British rule. It was first officially implemented in 1971 by John James Cowperthwaite, who observed that the economy was doing well in the absence of government intervention but it was important to create the regulatory and physical infrastructure to facilitate market-based decision making.

The policy was continued by subsequent Financial Secretaries, including Sir Philip Haddon-Cave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hong_Kong

@ Planeshift

So libertarians/minarchists should really be focusing on how you keep a population healthy, crime levels low etc whilst you cut the other bits of the state – and this may involve accepting initial high state spending.

Don’t disagree.

Crime levels could be halved if drugs were legalised (an ex police Chief Inspector told me this last week).

Could somebody please remind me when exactly the Golden Age of British public social responsibility was? Because I’m having trouble coming up with a time when volunteering made Britain a utopia… In fact, I seem to be under the impression that the very reason we ended up with the post-WWII welfare state settlement was because people were so royally pissed-off at the lousy results of leaving all our social ills to be dealt with charity.

43 & 44 pagar

Again, this doesn’t PROVE anything. Anyone can go cyber mining (Bob B, are you listening?), but it is not substitute for reasoned argument. Hong Kong isn’t the UK, and to spout out “Ah well, here are the figures proving it works in HK” does not speak to the point you are trying to make that the same thing would be possible here, or anywhere else with widely different social, geographical and political conditions.

@ 46 Dunc

There was no such Golden Age. “Minarchists” like to pretend there was because they seem to think it strengthens the case for their nutty desire to shrink the state, or insist there is no such thing as society (…er except the Big Society of course….)

46
Agree with @48, in fact welfare benefits were given-out as early as the 16th century under the Poor Law Act but this was administered by each parish, no doubt those who received it would have been considered as ‘the respectable poor’.
@37 correctly identifies that subjective value judgements made by benefactors when distributing poor relief lead to inequality. That’s why it is important that tax-payers money is distributed through a neutral instrument such as the state.
As UK citizens we all, in theory, have equal access to benefits, education and healthcare.

@ 36. I think the unemployed have to be very careful when doing voluntary work, particularly if that voluntary job makes any demands of commitment. You can’t sign up for working a set number of days per week for a minimum of three months for example because that would mean you’re not actively looking for work, and would prevent you from actively looking for work.

Also, the snoops have a tendency to turn up at your place unannounced so as to catch you out, assume you’re doing paid work and then cancel your benefit. Did that to me once when I was volunteering (I was at that time a single parent so wasn’t even supposed to be job-hunting, although the reason for volunteering was to improve my job chances). It was a week and a half before I’d noticed and I then had to spend all day queuing to get the benefit reinstated, and had to pay off a bank overdraft. So. The unemployed may well be advised to be careful when volunteering, although it can be worthwhile if it ends up in a paid job.

the snoops have a tendency to turn up at your place unannounced so as to catch you out, assume you’re doing paid work and then cancel your benefit. Did that to me once when I was volunteering (I was at that time a single parent so wasn’t even supposed to be job-hunting, although the reason for volunteering was to improve my job chances). It was a week and a half before I’d noticed and I then had to spend all day queuing to get the benefit reinstated, and had to pay off a bank overdraft.

Yep.

We’ve got a great benefits system haven’t we?

The problem I have with these debates is the two extremes are wrong. The state is not a benign saviour that if only we throw more money at it society will be improved. Moreover, the argument that if only the government would get out of the way everything would be hunky dory. The issue is not the size of government per se. Some of the best societies on earth have relatively big government. The issue is between good government and bad government and not the size of government. It is an observable fact that the best, healthiest and most prosperous societies on earth have larger government than the poorest societies. So if people concentrated on what is good government vs. bad government then we might get somewhere.
http://baselinescenario.com/2010/05/27/heritage-index-good-government-vs-less-government/

The Soviet Union had lots of government and it was uniformly bad government. The Nordics have lots of government and it is predominately good government. Get the incentives right and lots of good will flow. We are not going back to the supposed freedom from the state of 19th century Britain, and that would hardly be a desirable thing anyway. Daily Mail or not this was an interesting article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1312764/Britains-child-slaves-New-book-says-misery-helped-forge-Britain.html

Regulations, laws and state functions did not appear in a vacuum. They arose because the conditions and services were horrific.

The problem with the left in this country is as far as I can see they have nothing new or interesting to say. Mutual ownership and empowering local communities should be fertile ground for lefties. All I read is whining and shrill denouncements of what they do not like but no real creative thinking of alternatives. They are still wedded to the concept of statism because they have still not come to terms with the fact that it was an abject failure. The British style of state socialism of the 1950s and 1960s FAILED. The incomes policies, price controls, nationalisations, exchange controls and demand management all collapsed in the 1970s. Our workers entered the 1950s as the best paid in Europe and by the 1970s were one of the worst paid. Our politicians both blue and red made them the worst paid by following flawed statist policies. Yet, bizarrely some think of it as a golden age. Therein is the problem, an attachment to statist concepts that do not work. Sure, things improved for people over that period but they improved even more elsewhere because they followed better policies.

The world is vastly changed from circa 1950 and if anything the pace of change is accelerating. Statism will not help us keep up with the change. Almost everywhere in the world they are trying to reduce the reach of government. To imagine that Britain will go the opposite way is whistling in the wind. Some creative thinking in place of shrillness from lefties is what is required.

@ 49 steveb

“@37 correctly identifies that subjective value judgements made by benefactors when distributing poor relief lead to inequality. That’s why it is important that tax-payers money is distributed through a neutral instrument such as the state.
As UK citizens we all, in theory, have equal access to benefits, education and healthcare.”

Exactly; the hard right (or before there was properly even a “right” the rich/propertied/aristocracy) never have and never will care about inequality; their ideological commitment to the smallest possible government and expenditure over-rides all other potential factors. To them inequality and unequal access are a price worth paying if it means they can retain more of their wealth.

Sadly the “soft” right, one nation Tories who actually did “get it” for a while have been comprehensively sidelined in recent decades. The elephant in the room of the Big Society house is that those who sincerely believe in it actually want a Poor Law “de nos jours”: what they see as the the undeserving poor will be thrown to the wolves, and the deserving poor will be given the bare minimum and be expected to be thankful for it.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves; anyone who falls for it and collaborates is a witless fellow traveller.

Richard @ 34

People lived in squalor back then because we were all poorer. Being poor today is preferable to being rich in Victorian England.

Yes, but have you wondered why that is? Is ‘being poor’ in the Sudan, Haiti or even New Orleans for example preferable to being a rich Victorian English person?

Pagar @ 38

Hong Kong and Singapore? Are you having a laugh? These are Cities (albeit very large ones), not Countries. How can you compare a City the size of Hong Kong with an entire Country spread over miles and miles. Perhaps you should look at how these States/Cities became so rich.

“Is ‘being poor’ in the Sudan, Haiti or even New Orleans for example preferable to being a rich Victorian English person?”

Not so much a time comparrisson, but life expectancy in some estates in the UK is lower than it is in Haiti.

@ G O (37)

Someone else had the even wackier idea of giving those public service trade unions terms of service that included final salary pensions that could be paid for 30 to 40 yrs, six months full sick pay etc etc, with the result that the services are utterly unafforable. Reform is needed, Tony Blair was right, Gordon Brown blocked him and we have the result you see before us. Nice mess is it not?

Instead of carping at the well off, who mostly work hard for what they have, why don’t you formulate a plan to improve your own standing? It will mean working hard, and being successful, but it will wean you off the taxpayer.

56
Those on low wages work very hard for their money also.

@56 Bee

Wow.. you really have swallowed the New Labour bible whole haven’t you? Hasn’t it given you indigestion yet?

The problem with your line of argument of course, is that oftentimes the slightly better conditions enjoyed by public sector workers were effectively given in lieu of increasing their salaries in line with the inflated rises enjoyed by the private sector (which of course seldom bore any relation to the success or otherwise of the companies).

It’s a bit rich to now turn around and say these weren’t affordable now. did it even occur to you that “most” ordinary people probably work a darn sight harder for their modest incomes than most relatively wealthy people do for their generous salaries, let alone the large numbers who are paid telephone figure salaries which would make Croesus blush.

No doubt you are goint to tell us that the ridiculous amounts paid to bankers are justifiable…? You realise of course that even one (effectively nationalised) bank, RBS has hundreds of people paid over £1 million a year.

Now tell us again about the need to wean ourselves off the taxpayer….

@ 58. Galen10

Unfortunately these terms and conditions of employment were not affordable but went ahead anyway due to devolved and delegated budgets over nearly all government departments and agencies.

It then became little more than each department playing catch-up on another departments perceived advantage. When that scam was exhausted they invented a spurious bonus system for civil servants …..the rest you know.