Big Society or Small Communities

I've been thinking some of this through for the last couple of days but only now have I had the chance to try to tie up the loose ends.

There seems to be a rightward shift in many countries as governments of different political shades respond to financial difficulties by slashing public expenditure. The media presents these policies as inevitable and the public in Britain seem to accept it in the way that a patient accepts unpalatable medicine from the doctor.

Of course things have been slightly different in the USA where Obama has pushed through his health reforms which will undoubtedly increase the public purse. Across the world there seems to be dissatisfaction with government, people are increasingly alienated from the political process. Nowhere has this been more clearly illustrated than with the Tea Party movement in the US.

In America however there has always been a large constituency of people who see government as a force that "enslaves" people. Their understanding of liberty and freedom derives from 18th century liberalism. Almost unbelievably many of those who call for the scraping of government programmes are actually the very people that these schemes are designed to help.

Yet the most powerful explanation was the call from the floor of the Chicago stock market when the man who is credited with creating the Tea Party movement is alleged to have said :

"why should I pay to support society's losers."

And so to Britain, the Conservatives have been a low tax party for as long as most of us can remember, it is a core belief of most Conservatives that people should keep as much of their personal wealth as possible. With the choice between cuts and raising taxes the Tory is in doubt which fork in the road to take. The sting is that they never explain that there is another route.

When Cameron launched his Big Society concept this week it was predictable that Labour politicians seized upon the response that people were being asked to volunteer to mask the effects of cuts in public spending. Sadly I think this may be the wrong line. Society needs more volunteers, in the past youth organisations, sports clubs, activities for the elderly have benefitted greatly from voluntary help. There is a genuine issue here, why aren't people volunteering today ?

In youth work I'm confident that child protection regulations have had a detrimental impact, but the root cause is more complex surely. There is a mood that questions why anyone gives their time freely. Many if asked would reply "How much am I getting paid ?". Of course I realise this analysis ignores the thousands of people who raise money for charity by taking part in sponsored events.

Should those on the left attack Cameron's call for a nation of volunteers. Obviously if the volunteers are replacing paid qualified staff the answer is yes, however if schemes encourage local people to identify with and relate to the communities in which they live then I sense we oppose at our peril.

A volunteer army that clears derelict land and develops community space and gardens or that fights back against litter would surely be applauded.

I'm left with the view that at local level there is value not in the "big society" but in the "small community", while across the country there remains an urgent need for properly funded, qualified people to deliver the essential services that are being jeopardised by cuts in the public sector.