One of the great illusive and poltical mysteries of the new decade, the masterplan of austerity bearer and Thatcherite David Cameron, 'the big society' has generated some pretty big headlines in recent weeks.
Critique surrounding 'the 'big society' threatens to destabilise the unwavering halo around David Cameron's balding head. Approval ratings show Cameron's Conservative Party aptly placed with around 37% of the vote; though behind Labour these are good numbers for a government in its first year of a five year term and currently implementing some of the deepest and most far-reaching cuts known in the post-war era. Recent decisions to cut benefits for the disabled, slash welfare for the middle class in the form of child tax credits and triple university tuition fees have caused furore on the streets of Britain. Reports of library closures and redundancies in the police force caused startling headlines across the UK tabloids adding to the public backlash.
But how bad is the feeling of discontent and where does the big society fit into this social morass? Recent protests saw as many as 50,000 take to the streets; but these activists seem to have made a limp retreat. There is almost a passive acceptance across all parties that these cuts are now necessary. Protests may be fewer in number but many people still feel a burning anger at a sense of betrayal by their government. Cameron hides behind the air-raid shelter that is Nick Clegg, whose Liberal party are polling at around only 7%, but ultimately he too will be judged on the success of his policies and the number of jobs the private sector are able to provide for his new leaner state. Yet polls show nearly half of Britains recongise the need for cuts and the economic importance of reducing the deficit; so is this more ideoligcal than pragmatic?
The classic liberal theory of a limited state, allowing maximum freedom for its citizens and minimal state imposition, bases its values on rewarding hard work of citizens and providing a safe environment for all to thrive. Linked back to Darwin and his 'survival of the fittest' theory, liberalism saw human beings as each posessing a selfish gene which inevitabley gave birth to competiton as a natural occurance in life. This system rewarded hard work and it is the basis of the Conservative party's roots. Yet with the industrial revolution, a greater sense of class inequality gave rise to an almost universal acceptance that the redistribution of wealth in some way is both necessary and fair. The Conservative's are often accused of wanting to 'take from the poor, to give to the rich'. In actual fact, they want to take less from everyone, and give away less as a consequence. The idea forms the basis of the 'American Dream'.
In Britain today right-wing supporters argue for lower taxes and less state intervention but accept the need for a 'welfare safety-net'. Whilst left-wing commentators support a greater redistribution of wealth to close the class gap and ensure all have access to the freedoms enjoyed by many.
The polarized views of parties in America, where this is a colossal gulf between right and left accession on policy, is not true of modern Britain. Both Labour and the Conservatives tread the central line. Tip-toeing to the left or right as their hard line supporters lean on them. There are no strides to end welfare on the right or support a huge increase in handouts on the left. There is consensual agreement on many issues. Yet they are divided on the volume of welfare and public spending- how much is too much?
£80 billion of coallition cuts from public services represents a staggering number. Cameron lambasts the previous administration and their fondness for the public purse, but who will fill the holes left in society once this money is snatched away?
The PM bodly states that private enterprise can help plug the gap in jobs. And as for the rest? Step forward 'The Big Society'; Cameron's masterpiece and his political legacy.
Whilst Cameron has attempted to redefine the Conservative party and step away from the shadow of Thatcher he is still sculpted from the same mould. Thatcher bemoaned a Britain that had become trapped in the welfare system; dependant on the state and expectant of it. A new generation of Britain's born with a sense of entitlement and feeling no moral responsibility; interested in what the country can do for them and not what they can do for their country. But Cameron has a place for these lost souls; at the center of his sparkling new vision; but what actually is the big society?
Well, the big society is everywhere, according to Cameron. Charities, community groups, local organisations with partial financial support from the government. The school volunteer. The neighboughhood watch group. The community support officer. The man who helps his elderly neighbough to do her shopping. The big society is about helping one another; about being an active citizen and engaging in your community. People bemoan the lack of social cohesion and the failiure of multiculturalism- this is part of re-integrating socieities, breaking down boundaries and building partnerships.
The left cry out- "we've been doing this for years!"... And so may be the case; but it is Cameron's ambitition to build on this, to accentuate the successes of community projects and then emulate them across the country. This is a call to arms to a society which lacks the proud patriatism of yesteryears generation to come together and fight against the uncertainty of an age of austerity.
Cameron describes it as his duty to save Britain from the clutches of its seemingly infinite deficit and labels the big society his 'burning mission'. His vision sees Britains who go beyond the realm of duty to re-invigorate communities, to truly love thy neighbough and turn the UK into a modern day, large scale version of Dad's Army. Britains may be listening but some are yet to be convinced this is not just a guise for more cuts to vulnerable non-govermental agencies disguised in the murky veil of rhetoric.
Cameron clings onto his concept of a big society like Aron Ralston remarkabley clings to life in Danny Boyle's recent flick, 127 Hours. Cameron has not only backed his horse, he has jumped right on top, saddled up and is hurtling towards the finish line. Only time will tell if his meristoctic values can transcend across a society thats slump into state-dependency and economic woe has been unprecedented.
James Perkins, University of the West of England, Law and Politics, first year
jamesperkins81@hotmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment