Fisking a "Short History of the Big Society"

Liberal Conspiracy have a hugely biased and pro-Labour piece up about the Big Society, and how Labour should respond to it. I've taken apart the first part of it, but not the second (despite it containing some outrageous unsubstantiated lies like Gordon Brown having done more than anyone else to help voluntary groups to flourish). The reason is simple - I want to combat the myths and lies this Labourite type is propagating about the Big Society but, as someone who cannot stand Labour, I couldn't give the first fuck about how Labour responds to the concept.

Let us begin:

Every time I read a well meaning Labour activist argue that “Labour needs to move beyond the belief that the state can do everything and develop a response to the Big Society”, it makes me sad.

Awww, bless you. Mind you, I always feel a bit sad when both Labour and Tory activists talk about the Big Society, since neither of them actually understand what the concept actually means.

Here is a quick history of events which contributed to the development of the Big Society:

In the 1970s and 1980s, radical/loony lefties set up a wide range of communuity groups to empower people and deliver a wide range of innovative services. The Tories and their Right Wing allies denounced them in the most vicious terms.

This isn't quite true. What radical/loony lefties have always tried to do is set up state-sanctioned community groups that can use money ripped from the taxpayer to fund the sort of groups of which they approve. The Tories do exactly the same thing; it is just that they favour different sorts of groups. That's the problem that both parties have when approaching a concept like the Big Society - both parties are too statist to really want a freer society.

Between 1997 and 2010, Labour created space and put in place policies to enable literally thousands of voluntary groups to flourish, with huge new opportunities to deliver services and to improve local neighbourhoods. The Tories ignored this, because they were more interested in banging on about immigrants and tax cuts.

No, no, again, not true. Nu Labour massively increased the scope of the state by offering funding (taken from the taxpayer) to pretty much anyone who would take it. The logic is simple - in doing so, it could create a large number of clients to the state, and therefore people destined to always vote for the party of the state. Furthermore, genuinely voluntary organisations do not require the backing of the state. And immigrants? Yes, the Tories have banged on about them - but Labour types are not immune to that tendency either. Nor are tax cuts a bad thing to bang on about - if implemented, then tax cuts let people spend more of their own money, and they may well spend it on genuinely voluntary groups.

In 2009, a small group of public relations professionals at the top of the Tory Party – none of whom had any experience of voluntary action – announced something called the ‘Big Society’, a vague, top down initiative which attempted to claim credit for the insight that voluntary groups had a role to play in delivering services and improving communities.

And in doing so stole the blueprint followed by Nu Labour. Don't believe me? Let's see what of this description could be applied to Nu Labour and its way of governing. Vague? Check. Top-down? Check. Claiming credit for an obvious insight? Check. This is Nu Labour, through and through.

In 2011, thousands of voluntary and community groups will be wiped out by the savage cuts which the Tory government is inflicting on us.

Such groups - if they are so dependent on funding from the government (central or local) - are actually extensions of that government. If these groups are so essential to their communities, then they will find alternative funding. If they're not, then, well, perhaps they should be wiped out - particularly since Nu Labour have ensured cuts have to be made.

An even shorter history of the Tories and the Big Society:

First they denounced it.
Then they ignored it.
Then they claimed credit for it.
Then they cut it.

But even if you accept that this reading of the Big Society is correct, it doesn't immediately follow that the Labour attitude towards increased localism is the right one. My thoughts are simple - neither Labour nor the Tories are capable of implementing what the Big Society should stand for as both place their faith in the state, not people or their communities or their society.