Articles RSSBe my own boss? Why doesn't the Tory party take some social responsibility?
Cameron is wrong if he thinks the people have all the solutions
It's power, Jim, but not as we know it
There is a huge gap at the heart of David Cameron's political philosophy. I call it Cameron's rather than the Conservative Party's because it is hard to imagine that those to the right of the party are wholly on board with his vision of a 'big society'.
The manifesto invites ordinary citizens to play a more active role in the running of their communities. This would involve groups of teachers, parents and other volunteer groups establishing and running schools with state funding. Communities could take over and run pubs threatened with closure. A mere 5% of local support would be needed to trigger a referendum to veto council tax rises or planned transport initiatives.
Cameron is relying on the society he calls broken to provide the solutions itself
Cameron wants every adult to be a member of a community organisation. The thinking behind such manifesto pledges is that the state is too large and is not capable of solving every problem the nation faces. However, a rolling back of the state will not automatically be followed by a rolling out of society. It seems odd that Cameron is relying on the society he has for years been calling broken to provide the solutions to all manner of problems. More than odd, it seems plainly absurd to assume that Britain is actually full of people with the skills and the drive to run cost-effective nursing teams, schools and post-offices, but that these people have simply sat on the sideline in the past, simply waiting for somebody to issue them an invitation.
The Conservative's policy on education has been opposed by over 50 headteachers, including a number of those who run the academies Cameron so wants to expand. There is widespread scepticism that this invitation for communities rather than Westminster and Whitehall to do the work amounts to little more than a method by which the £6bn of pledged savings can be afforded.
Even if this isn't the case, there is a huge danger that the situation of desperate inequality in Britain would only worsen under the next government if the Conservatives managed to win a majority. The constituencies more likely to support the Tories' bid for power are those populated by people with the skills, the time and the resources necessary to successfully run the community organisations Cameron has been talking about. What of those communities which are already losing the battle with crime, even with government help? What of those communities where the residents don't have the free time to do volunteer work, because they are struggling to get by on a minimum wage (a minimum wage which the Tories pledge simply to keep, whilst both Labour and the Liberal Democrats promise to increase it)? The risk of rolling back the state is that the communities most in need of social regeneration are least likely to effect in on their own. They would be, as Brown put it, 'left on their own to face the recession'.
the fundamental premise behind their vision is naively optimistic about the nature and capabilities of the British people
Most worrying is the possibility of easily referenda to veto rises to council tax, or to veto unpopular transport development. Nimby objections to projects such as the much needed high-speed rail links would be almost impossible to tackle, and councils would struggle to carry out their – much reduced – responsibilities if the people directly decide whether they want to pay more taxes or not. Sensible fiscal decisions made centrally, by those able to see the big picture should not be replaced by a decision making process which empowers a less-informed majority, and one with vested interests. Cameron decries the arrogance of the last forty years of British politics where the political elite has insulted the intelligence of the public by pretending to know all of the answers. He may be right that a bit more humility on the part of politicians would be a good thing. It doesn't follow that it is the public who know all of the answers, and it would be a dangerous move to act on the assumption that they do.
There is much in the Conservative's manifesto which should be taken seriously. However, the fundamental premise behind their vision is either naively optimistic about the nature and capabilities of the British people, or it is cynically populist and little more than an attempt to win power with no real intention of giving it away.
Thanks for the invite David, but, like most of the rest of Britain, I'll be too busy not having the time or the know-how to run the country. If only there was someone we could vote for to do it for us...
Comments in chronological order
Total: 13
Wed 14 Apr 2010 11:50pm
This is a very well argued piece, and I don’t want to get too involved with many of the very real problems that have been raised here, in particular the danger of creating California style government paralysis via the use of excessive referenda. That said, I do want to take issue with the underlying idea in both the article and the response above, an idea articulated in following sentence: “However, the fundamental premise behind their vision is either naively optimistic about the nature and capabilities of the British people, or it is cynically populist and little more than an attempt to win power with no real intention of giving it away.”
This, I think, is perhaps the most pernicious principle inherent in all Left leaning political thought, the idea that people can’t be trusted to run their own lives. British society probably isn’t “broken”, but it is suffering from very real problems caused by the inability of people to take responsibility for their own actions. Yes, they might need help at first. Yes, it will take time to wean communities off the idea that their problems aren’t their responsibility. And, yes, the public may at times make decisions that we at Oxbridge don’t like. But they do actually know best when it comes to what is best for their communities. It is the local community who are best placed to decide what is best for their own schools, hospitals and services. They are the ones with the real, lived experiences, not some paper-pushing apparatchik in Whitehall or supercilious over paid MP in Westminster. The Conservatives don’t have all the answers, but at least they recognise that the best place to find them is at the grassroots level, with the people asking the questions.
Thu 15 Apr 2010 12:42am
While I may not entirely agree with Mr Cameron's proposal, it is fallacious to claim that this notion of 'Big Soceity' is not part of a Tory vision of change. Lou, you commented that
"'Votes for Change' has no merit when the premise of the Conservative manifesto lies with a complete lack of action or reform."
That clearly is not true. Indeed, the original article cited that there may well be too much action and the reform too great resulting in local governmental systems frustrated by over zealous constituents.
Moreover, the claim that the Cameron is abdicating responsibility and that this "policy is a mask for apathy" again does not corroborate with the true sentiment of the manifesto. Giving people control of undeniably local affairs is perfectly natural - something which many people have championed in recent years. Be it the school having to take orders from a distant civil servants or whatever else, James is correct in asserting that local communities are better placed to understand their own people. This does not mean that Whitehall will never assist or set guidelines or regulations, rather that local people can deal with problems from a uniquely positioned stance.
"I'll be too busy not having the time or the know-how to run the country." The manifesto has not stated that random people will be given charge of foreign policy and ways in which to reduce the deficit! Let's not get carried away. These aim of this policy is local issues.
The manifesto is far from perfect but to criticise this particular idea on the grounds of simple cynicism and hyperbole is unfair.
Thu 15 Apr 2010 1:08am
@James:
I think your objection comes from a confusion I am responsible for, through not being as comprehensive in my argument as I could have been. I don't at all object to local people dictating the pace and direction of local politics, indeed I welcome it. My point about there not being scores of talented people who have been lurking in the shadows just waiting for the Conservatives to issue this invitation was more a reference to the idea that no previous government, Labour or Conservative, has ever stopped people -at whatever level - getting involved. I assume that most people with the desire, time and resources to effect change in their local community will have already made attempts to do so. If they haven't, then I certainly welcome the Conservatives encouraging them to do so. What I feel is so dangerous about Cameron's new vision is that it seems to be a rationale for cutting back on government provision of those things which communities need across the board. The Conservatives, whilst they have promised to protect NHS spending, have neglected to do so with regards to education or the police. The concern here is that Cameron would rush through his inevitable spending cuts in the first financial year, and there would not be this huge network of willing and capable individuals in place to provide essential services.
My point about inequality is straightforward, but to explain it I must tackle one of your objections more directly. I think there is a huge difference between running one's own life and running a school. I don't think it particularly pernicious a thought that there are communities in the United Kingdom which lack the necessary human capital for such an endeavour. The reference I made to the sort of constituency which is likely to support the Conservatives was intended to highlight why this is a problem in terms of the election. Constituencies which support the Tories will approve of the rolling back of the state in favour of community action. The reason they will support this is that their communities will be fit to deal with the problems of service provision. There will inevitably be communities which cannot deal with these problems, and I fear their being left behind. I appreciate that the article came across as more against direct local involvement in politics than I had intended, but to clarify, my main fear is a universal reduction in state involvement in communities, even in areas where such state involvement is absolutely essential. I do think that in the wider picture of their stance to running the country that it is a fair enough assessment of their intentions, but if this is a misconception of Tory policy then I think the fault lies with their explication.
Thu 15 Apr 2010 1:14am
@ Anshul:
Forgive the hyperbole. I think I've made a fair enough case for criticising the principle that it can't readily be dismissed as simple cynicism. But ultimately, given that I am cynical of the proposed reforms, you'll just have to forgive my being cynical as well.
Thu 15 Apr 2010 2:07am
Anshul
I was slightly unclear. By describing 'a lack of reform or action' I did not seek to deny that the Conservatives are certainly suggesting changes in their manifesto. I meant that Cameron is failing to propose viable solutions to existing problems and instead is shifting responsibilities. I feel that the Tory's, in this 'big society' policy, are neglecting areas which need assistance most, areas which Cameron would dub to be the heartland of the 'broken society'. I am sure that in areas with low crime rates and an existing active social community then a policy of 'apathy', to quote myself, is probably a viable option, giving communities and individuals a healthy level of autonomy over local issues. However, I simply fail to see how this can be a fair, national policy given that the majority of areas in which communities are in the greatness need of a sense of 'society' are ones where a rolling back of government support and intervention is simply not a viable option.
The article, and Gary's subsequent responses puts this a lot better than I do.
Thu 15 Apr 2010 10:53am
There he goes again. It's the old, worn-out line from Dray. Don't you think this merely enables the Conservatives to deflect responsibility for an absence of provided services? Instead of taking any responsibility for a lack of service provision they can perpetually trumpet the excuse: if you want it, you set it up. One more step on the road to a libertarian nightmare, where the less advantaged have only the comfort of knowing that if they had the social capital necessary to set up a world class school they could. This policy really should be called 'The Great Postcode Lottery Expansion' where the quality of education, healthcare and transport services people recieve will be increasingly dictated by accident of birth. But then again, as a beneficiary of the genetic lottery I expect Cameron doesn't much mind.
Secondly, I also cannot fathom how they intend to conduct this experiment amidst a deep recession. If their intention is true doesn't it require a commitment to immense funding to set up these places and a substantially long and costly wait before 'the market' settles and delivers top quality services? How on earth can the Conservatives make coherent budget projections when so much spending might be dependent upon the individual whims of small local groups? If they do realise this doesn't this mean that only the most well-researched, funded and connected proposals will recieve funds? Aren't they the proposals that are likely to favour the wealthy?
Finally, I just don't believe that Cameron is sincere. This is a person who has ruthlessly centralised parliamentary and local party policy. A man who is simultaneously promising a less prescribed National Curriculum but wants to impose and intellectually vacuous conception of the 'British Historical Narrative' (whatever that might be) on all children. The leader of a 'Changed' Conservative Party who wants to financially incentivise (if £150 can be called an incentive) a particular type of relationship. Why should we believe he is sincere?
Thu 15 Apr 2010 11:33am
The contradictions that are currently consuming the Conservative Party would be amusing were it not for the looming prospect of their entry into government. Cameron's one big idea appears to be a vacuous commitment to 'big society', dressed up as radical and progressive. Yet we must contrast this with his centralisation of his own Party. There is a growing divide between the Cameroons and backbenchers who have been all but ignored by DC. We add to this, the (oxy)moronic obsession with deficit reduction and manifesto proposals pledging four-times more tax cuts than Michael Howard. A hoody-saving, icecap-hugging moderniser leading a party which refuses to recognise the importance of basic human rights to the modern world.
Although, Labour's capacity to produce a progressive manifesto that has no need for the word 'liberty' encapsulates the worst of their thirteen years in power.
Fri 16 Apr 2010 8:45am
My main problem with what Cameron is proposing is one of practicality, similar to what Gary has argued - I just don't think communities are necessarily able (almost certainly not quite the right word) even if they are willing.
I have worked very closely with a rural community in Scotland who are disappointed with the way centralised planning has failed them (and thankfully due to reserved powers will be spared Cameron's vision of a 'bigger society'). Central control by NHS Highland meant that they felt, for example, that they did not have adequate nursing cover. And it was true that there were many aspects of care that could have been improved by looking more closely at what the community needed. In the research we did, over two thirds of the community got involved, airing their somewhat lengthy grievances. Some of this was constructive and has allowed the NHS to improve certain issues. Some of the things they wanted were frankly ludicrous, revealing a population rooted in nostalgia with very little understanding of budget constraints faced by government. As a result of research, it was concluded that the local NHS trust should work with the community to provide solutions that suited it. There was no doubt in our minds, given the high response rate to the research, that there was community willingness akin to that which Cameron speaks about.
Since then, ONE person, the same person, has turned up to the meetings to plan health strategy for the community. After people have had their moan, people are generally unwilling to help to provide constructive change. It is very easy to oppose something. It is very easy for Cameron to say that communities will get involved. But when it actually comes to the opportunity to do so, people won't so long as they think someone else will do it on their behalf. It is also important to note, that partnership with this particular community has proved more costly, but more worryingly, it has been a very long drawn out process, having been in discussions for almost two years. This has dragged out the process of providing emergency ambulance cover to the community, something with obvious implications for their health.
Obviously this is just one case, and one policy area, but I do think it illustrates many of the problems with Cameron's vision.
Sun 18 Apr 2010 12:52pm
In principle the idea of local communities being more involved in local governance is a good one I think. However, the context in which such an idea would be implemented is of paramount importance.
I believe a necessary precondition of local community participation is a powerful and well organized local government. And unfortunately, a necessary precondition of that seems to be a history of regionalism versus centralization, at both a political and economic level.
In those European nations with a history of regionalism, such as Italy and Germany, local governments and local communities are more involved in politics, than those with a history of centralization such as UK, and too a lesser extent France.
These 'regionalistic' countries not only have more powerful local governments, but central governments often elected on some sort of proportional representation basis - which carries its own set of costs. As mentioned in previous comments, quite aside from whether or not local communities are able and willing to participate in local governance, local government's are often relatively short-sited in their decision making and impervious to the national context.
Britain not only has to deal with the direct influences of its history of centralization versus regionalism, but the more deep-rooted and long lasting ones - the fundamental break down of society in itself.
After all "There's no such thing as society" , is there David?
Tue 20 Apr 2010 2:15am
The important distinction to make in assessing the Tories' "Big Society" plan is between the devolution of power and the abdication of responsibility. The Tories may talk of, and even believe in, the former, but the reality of their proposals is the latter. We already have the structure for local decisions to be made locally by local people: schools' boards of governors, council planning committees. These are the institutions of Cameron's Hesiodic Golden Age of Society, where councillors and school governors are respected leaders of the community. This structure is run by local people and is democratically accountable to local people through local councils and, ultimately, Parliament. This is the devolution of power, trusting local people to run their own lives, and the reason that it appears absent now is not because it does not exist but because it has been rendered impotent by assault from unaccountable figures who think that local people cannot be trusted to run their areas: boards of governors no longer have the final say on expulsions, planning committees are over-ruled by central planning authorities.
However, the Tories do not propose (if you will forgive the horrendous metaphor) to bring a can of WD40 to this rusty and decrepit yet still fundamentally sound structure, but to toss it on the scrap heap altogether. No, Government – local or national – and the democratic accountability that comes with it is not the answer. If the services that you pay for and (theoretically) have a say in the running of are not working in the way you want them to, the answer is not to give you the sort of say in the services that you should have, but to tell you to go away and see if you can run them better yourself. If your child’s school is failing then, under a Tory government, you have no right to complain: you should set up your own school. It is true abdication of responsibility. Moreover in the example of schools, who will run these parent-instituted establishment? Most working parents will not have the time to, and it seems more likely that they will appoint private companies to do the job for them. This is privatisation by the back door, with the democratic unaccountability to all but the privileged few that it brings.
Gary is therefore right to say that the Tories are either naïve or cynical, although I would give different reasons for this assessment. Either they truly believe in local power and accountability and do not understand that what they propose does quite the opposite; or they do not believe in it in reality, instead the abdication of responsibility and mantra of the free market that their proposals will really bring, and are using this rhetoric of a “Big Society” and local accountability in a cynical attempt to gain the popular vote.
Tue 20 Apr 2010 2:17am
The important distinction to make in assessing the Tories' "Big Society" plan is between the devolution of power and the abdication of responsibility. The Tories may talk of, and even believe in, the former, but the reality of their proposals is the latter. We already have the structure for local decisions to be made locally by local people: schools' boards of governors, council planning committees. These are the institutions of Cameron's Hesiodic Golden Age of Society, where councillors and school governors are respected leaders of the community. This structure is run by local people and is democratically accountable to local people through local councils and, ultimately, Parliament. This is the devolution of power, trusting local people to run their own lives, and the reason that it appears absent now is not because it does not exist but because it has been rendered impotent by assault from unaccountable figures who think that local people cannot be trusted to run their areas: boards of governors no longer have the final say on expulsions, planning committees are over-ruled by central planning authorities.
However, the Tories do not propose (if you will forgive the horrendous metaphor) to bring a can of WD40 to this rusty and decrepit yet still fundamentally sound structure, but to toss it on the scrap heap altogether. No, Government – local or national – and the democratic accountability that comes with it is not the answer. If the services that you pay for and (theoretically) have a say in the running of are not working in the way you want them to, the answer is not to give you the sort of say in the services that you should have, but to tell you to go away and see if you can run them better yourself. If your child’s school is failing then, under a Tory government, you have no right to complain: you should set up your own school. It is true abdication of responsibility. Moreover in the example of schools, who will run these parent-instituted establishment? Most working parents will not have the time to, and it seems more likely that they will appoint private companies to do the job for them. This is privatisation by the back door, with the democratic unaccountability to all but the privileged few that it brings.
Gary is therefore right to say that the Tories are either naïve or cynical, although I would give different reasons for this assessment. Either they truly believe in local power and accountability and do not understand that what they propose does quite the opposite; or they do not believe in it in reality, instead the abdication of responsibility and mantra of the free market that their proposals will really bring, and are using this rhetoric of a “Big Society” and local accountability in a cynical attempt to gain the popular vote.
Tue 20 Apr 2010 2:22am
I seem to have managed to post the same comment twice - although with one word altered in the second redaction. That was greedy of me.
Share/bookmark
Facebook
digg
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon
Send email
Send gmail
Louisa Stoppard
Wed 14 Apr 2010 8:40pm
I couldn't agree more.
After the case of two young boys tortured in Doncaster Cameron stated ‘I think when things like this happen it is right to stand back, reflect and ask ourselves some deep questions about what is going wrong in our society’, yet his manifesto makes no real attempt to answer these questions. Instead it simply passes the responsibility directly onto the ‘broken society’ itself. Cameron's argument that by voting Tory one 'Votes for Change' has no merit when the premise of the Conservative manifesto lies with a complete lack of action or reform. The policy is a mask for apathy, a lack of modernity, and a ridiculous nostalgia for a society which never really existed.
Furthermore, one should not overlook the fact that Cameron has based a large part of his campaigning on using media coverage of crime to the point of blaming Labour for social problems. If the actions of individuals in society are the fault and responsibility of the Labour government, how can Cameron then presume that these very individuals are ready to accept personal responsibly for their actions as part of a ‘big society’. Under Cameron would we blame the individual and society rather than the government, convenient eh..? Yet again the Tories are missing the point and demonstrating clear double standards...