Is Cameron's 'big society' just coded language for sweeping privatisation?
According to David Cameron writing in today’s Observer the Conservative programme for government is founded on a radical revolt against statist approach of the Big Government that always knows best.” So is this what the fundamental dividing line between Labour and Tory is going to be in this election? Much has been made about the frame of debate being between “big state” Labour and “big society” Tory. Labour’s manifesto pledges to deliver "active reforming government, not absent government" while Cameron’s “big society” is backing "social responsibility, not state control".
Gordon Brown spoke of this campaign being the ‘big choice election’. Last week Cameron invited us all to “join the government of Britain”. His “big society” idea was about giving power back to us so that we could take control. But is the Tories idea of ‘people power’ just a brilliant piece of spin? Is it to make us believe that small government and minimising the power of the state will cure the social ills in our society and give us control over our lives and our communities? As we begin the third week of campaigning a clear divide between the two main parties is beginning to emerge.
To be fair, in theory, giving power back to the people is a great sentiment, but as Sadie Smith argued in her Left Foot Forward blog entry last week, "Cameron's Big Society is in democratic deficit". The Conservative plans for 'little platoons of civil society' to be enouraged to start new schools, run health services and to save the local pub is not only underestimating the level at which it can increase social division, but as Smith goes on to claim the "big society" is, "merely a back-door way of allowing the wealthy and educated to clean up at the expense of those of lower social class and educational attainment."
Essentially Cameron’s Big Society is a policy of outsourcing a much higher proportion of public services than at present. But a key question we have to ask is outsourcing to whom? Cameron’s answer to what he calls the “stifling clutches of the state” is to replace it with the transformative power of social responsibility. By making government more accountable and transparent this will open, “public services to new providers unleashing the forces of innovation.” Academics and public sector experts have warned that handing control of public services to private groups of individuals could result in higher levels of corruption and inefficiency, with the reality being corporate control of schools and the breakup of the welfare state. Tony Travers of the London School of Economics (LSE) was quoted in the Guardian as stating that the take of over of public services would only happen in areas where there were large populations of entrepreneurial professionals. This is echoing Smith’s argument of the rich and wealthy taking over at the expense of the poor being left behind. Travers asks whether it would merely, “strengthen areas that already have high levels of social capital and entrepreneurship?” The result of this reinforcing difference and those at the bottom of the ladder being left on their own.
This is not to say that everything about state intervention and big government is good. Of course its not, but progressive government is about a social transaction between state and people ensuring government intervention with individual freedom. Cameron’s speech at the launch of his manifesto attempted to invoke the sprit of JFK and Obama, but James Macintyre in the New Statesman wrote how “we were struck by the similarity of its language to that of George W Bush and the "compassionate conservatism" he advocated in his 2000 presidential campaign, with its promises of "local control" for schools and competition by private groups for the provision of public services.” In other words, the sweeping privisation of the pubic services. Should we be wary of the same happening here?
If you read Labour’s manifesto what they are seeking to do is bridge the gap between state and society. Giving the public a bigger say is not a new idea, but Cameron’s “Big Society” does create a more clear dividing line between the two main parties as to how to bridge this gap will be approached. Labour advocate an active state to empower civil society; the Tories want to ‘roll back the state’ with a bigger society. There is a now a real choice and whoever wins on May 6th, the way this country is governed will change.
