How Big Should the State Be? Three Small Problems for the Big Society.... By John Taysom
T 40 entrepreneurcountry
he current UK Government led by Mr. Cameron could not avoid earning itself a special place in history.
It is the
first peace-time UK Coalition; it forms
the book-end to the Shakespearean tragedy of unelectable Mr Brown and his predecessor the unimpeachable Mr Blair and that whole era of spin and misinformation; and it marks the return of inherited wealth and the Eton educated elite to the UK Premiership ironically following on from ten years of ʻsocialismʼ whose stated intention was to make society more meritocratic. So although it is understandable that a new Prime Minister in a new Government
might feel the need to make his own personal mark, might it be a failure to grasp some of this historic context, perhaps as a result of being at its epicentre, that has spurred Prime Minister David Cameron to propose as his legacy, his big idea, the ʻBig Societyʼ? He wants by the promotion of a Big Society nothing less than to change fundamentally the relationship of State and governed. As an attempt to redefine the legitimate role of the sate in capitalism this UK experiment has wide implications beyond just the UK. It has implications for education policy, for healthcare policy, and for many of the key budget costs in the developed and the developing world.
Whatever the impetus for Mr Cameronʼs initiative it seems that
the undeniably fine message, that we are strongest when our support for each other is not mediated by the tax man to collect and the bureaucrat to disburse, has been lost. The Big Society may be a good idea, but so far its articulation has underwhelmed even those who feel emotionally empathetic. The recent UK Budget did little to change this short-term assessment. On reflection I think this is because there are three fundamental but fixable problems for the Big Society idea as articulated.
# The first problem is simply the language chosen for the message. When Cameron says Big Society I think he really means ʻsmall communityʼ. And that is not a semantic difference. I am sure
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56