It may come as a surprise to those who accuse me of being over-optimistic by nature that I must admit to being somewhat depressed shortly after the New Year; Labour having made some overtures to empowering civil society, seemed to be retrenching. First, there was Neal Lawson’s piece on the Good Society, which suggested a move away in the Party from the mutualism, self-help, and belief that characterised the early formation of Labour, towards a moralising, Athenian, utopian vision that seeks to get politicians to define what is human and then enforce their definition upon our economic, social and cultural lives. Second, there were rumours that the Movement for Change was being abandoned by the Labour leadership. And third, it seemed that politics had once more reverted to the playground in the run up to the Oldham by-election. Plus ca change.
But recent events have shown that Labour is realising that the question of how we empower and support citizens to take control over the lives remains one of the defining issues that we and our leaders will need to address in the coming years. Ed Miliband’s recent semi mea culpa, assurances that one of the Milibands will keep the Movement for Change alive, Jon Cruddas’ call for a return to a more settled English sense of community, and the elevation of Maurice Glasman to the House of Lords with his articulation of Blue Labour offer evidence that the centre ground of long-term political thinking and practice in the 21st century has shifted to how we shape our society as citizens together, rather than relying on politicians (or the media) to dictate to us how we should live, what we should think, and how we live side by side equitably. This is not to ignore the ongoing importance of economics and the financial pressures we will all face as more tax-payers retire over the coming decades, leaving fewer funds available for the high levels of public expenditure we have grown accustomed to over the last sixty years.
But if the next few years will see a battle for our purse, it is true to say that next sixty will be about a battle for our freedom, about how we live and how government supports and enables us rather than intrudes into our personal and collective lives, allowing us to pursue our own agendas and that of the common good more in partnership with it rather than in spite of it, whatever they may be. Hopefully this means that in future fewer policies, initiatives, or organisations will be too big to fail – which is sadly what can happen when you over-centralise decision-making and institutions, such that every mistake made affects millions of people at a time.
Blue Labour and Good Society are in many ways a lament for the true origins of the Labour Party before the rise of modernity and brutal Statism captured them. But in their strengths lie their greatest weaknesses. They often feel more like a reactionary exercise – looking back to pre-modern times, when communities were more stable, and people were nicer, but also when communities were more closed to outsiders – without a sense of how we can find our way there once more. They are essentially nostalgic about England: its trade unions, pubs, and extended families – even if these are not always seen as relevant or frequented that much by today’s citizens, who might prefer to congregate elsewhere offline and online. They suffer from a lack of economic literacy and do not seem to have a means of constraining, nudging, or encouraging markets to reform from within, and seems to stand only at the gates to the City looking in, decrying its practices and existence without a means to go beyond protest and to aid the real economy (for example through alternative forms of everyday financing such as models like Zopa). And their accommodation of faith seems very functional, a recognition that people of faith can do good things for society without an acknowledgement that Statism often made it difficult to practice your faith and to have beliefs without inviting suspicion about your intentions.
But these are still early days for the Good Society and Blue Labour. I welcome the new Peer and applaud him for his efforts, and look forward to hearing and engaging further with him. It is interesting to note that he is to be Lord Glasman of Stoke Newington and Stamford Hill, not to far from where I live in Shoreditch. Without reading too much into this, it is worth noting that in both Stoke/Stamford Hill and Shoreditch we can catch a glimpse of what the Good and Big Society might look like respectively, with their respective strengths and weaknesses. The one seems more semi-urban, whilst the other is close to the heart of the metropolis. One has more established communities living there, whilst the other is in a state of greater flux and population change. One is fiercely proud of its traditions, whilst the other is a home to high technology. That is not to say that each cannot accommodate and include the rural and urban, stability and mobility, or the past and the future. Both the Good and Big Society seek to put citizens at the centre and in the driving seat, not government nor the market nor even the social sector – important as these all are. And that, whichever way you look at it, must be a good (or big) step for us all.
There remain however risks ahead for this new consensus on society. First is Ballsonomics, that lingering belief that high spending and a big state in parts of Labour which has the potential to crush good society. The second is that in the move to decentralise power as part of the big society you simply recreate local versions of big government or other overweening institutions. The third is that Good Society ultimately becomes a cover for Big Government – direct (web-enabled and/or street-based) action that leads not to self help and mutual support but to a form of lobbying in which the assumption remains still that government should do everything.
Nonetheless and in spite of these risks the way forward is looking good (or big), despite the hard choices the previous government has left us, and the last few weeks’ media narrative. It is notable that those who might oppose Big and Good Society have given up doing so on the basis of policy and reason, and have switched to personal attacks and unsubstantiated Brownite spin instead – big government bullying tactics now being used in opposition. Far from being a sign of strength, this has a whiff of desperation. Perhaps Labour should lament its return as it in turn returns to its roots.
“Athenian” – what is Athenian? I thought the Athenians were all about participation and democracy (as long as you weren’t slaves, women, foreigners, etc…)
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Fabienne, Tony Burkson, Vinay Gupta, Robert Dale, Ms Cat, Andrea and others. Ms Cat, Andrea said: RT @NatWei: New post: Good Society – a lament for the left http://tinyurl.com/6kl4vmw #goodsociety #bigsociety [...]
Wondered when you were going to get political. To make all the swipes that you do at Labour – some of which may well be justified – does also indicate where your allegiance lies.
The surest way to the demise of the Big Society idea is if it becomes identified as linked to political tribalism. I was dubious beforehand, but your post has reinforced my view that BS is a political strategy rather than a good idea.
“those who might oppose Big and Good Society have given up doing so on the basis of policy and reason” – patently untrue, as is clear to anyone who reads the wealth of critical informed commentary.
“personal attacks and unsubstantiated Brownite spin instead – big government bullying tactics now being used in opposition” – this if anything is a return to party political rhetoric in place of reasoned argument.
Lord Wei needs to decide once and for all whether he is a spokesperson for the policy of for Conservative Party.
Big Society?
Thousands of us volunteer every year. It is demeaning and disrespectful of our efforts for you and your political party to try – as is now patently obviously the case having read your blog – to turn that activity into a partisan political activity.
By the way, Lord Wei’s decision to cut down his hours in his Government post is the height of irony. But it also illustrates how little you understand about volunteering – most people I know do it to get away from the nasty, small things in life – like politicians. Please, please, please do us all a favour and drop the “Big Society” garbage and stay away from voluntary work alone. Please.
Utterly ideological. Populated with straw men. Nicely written, though, Oxbridge?
This “Big Society” idea was a vile one from the start. What it boils down to is making the poor responsible for their own services so the rich can get away with paying less taxes.
We all have exactly the same rights to the land, but this country deliberately enforces inequality. Well, I say if someone thinks they have a right to massive estates at everyone else’s cost, then they also accept the responsibility for using that estate to support people.
When I read that you found volunteering and “low pay” (as if you guys understood low pay) meant you can’t have a life, I was most amused. So the Tories have finally figured it out, huh? Took you guys long enough.
And the Tories believe the unemployed can sweep streets for 40 hours a week for the pittance of £65.
If you people really wanted to empower us you would return our land to us, stop exploitation, raise wages to acceptable levels, and reduce working hours. Maybe then we could actually afford to pay for and run our own services.
Those of us who have been committed to the Big Society as volunteers and campaigners [and members of the Labour Party] for many years really don’t need to be patronised in this way … and imagining that exhortation and enthusiasm will replace the massive shifts of funding from cities to the semi-rural counties, and especially the collapse of the Supporting People / Floating Support programmes in many urban areas, is simply refusing to recognise reality.
Denying help to the poor, help that has made a significant difference over the past seven or so years to many, many marginalised people, help that has enabled them to stay in their homes, deal with debt and health problems, sustain family relationships and even stay out of jail, so that taxes for the better off can be reduced – which appears to be the long-term strategy of the government – is not contributing to a Big or Good society but undermining any notion of society at all.
[...] Lord Wei has decided to use some of his free time to concern troll lefties on his blog: There remain however risks ahead for this new consensus on society. First is Ballsonomics, that [...]
Have you read “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”? Chapters 36 and 37 amongst others describe the excellent Big Society arrangements in Mugsborough.
Ah those good old days…
[...] has argued, Conservatism believes that people are mutually dependent on each other. Labour, as Nat Wei and Dave Skelton have argued, are ignoring their heritage if they disown Big Society – mutualism, [...]