Can the endogeny of The New Politics help to make the Big Society idea fly?

OK, this is a hasty post – and one that is subject to this caveat.

It’s far too early to trash the Big Society initiative, and as someone who doesn’t support either of the parties behind the incoming government, it’s quite painful to see them picking up so many ideas that are basically great ones – and ones that Labour failed to prioritise in thirteen years of government.

But there was a very unconvincing performance from Nat Wei, (founder of Teach First and who is to lead the Big Society project) on the Today Programme earlier that suggested that there wasn’t any heart behind the idea from the new government.

I mean, really, listen to it – if this is their champion, I’m a little worried for them. I’ve never heard a Today presenter soft-pedal on so many of the spongy presumptions about ‘Community Right to Buy’ and the idea that some kind of spontaneous voluntary coalition will step in to shorten police response times. On the detail, here’s Kevin Harris. As Kevin’s post title puts it: ‘Small state, big society’ is obviously the right idea: so do it properly.

Kevin has forgotten more than most people involved in the Big Society project have learned on the key questions raised by the project.

“I find this paper weak on one level because it’s reasonable to expect Cabinet Office documents to show some sense of authority. They could start by having a statement of origin and a date of publication. This looks like an internal memo intended to motivate the back office staff.”

I would suggest that this isn’t administrative incoherence – it’s a symptom of something of a political vacuum.

The Big Society and The New Politics are ideas that I would suggest are inextricably linked. And while Kevin and I may be sceptical about the configuration of the new government to do any more than use Big Society as an opportunistic conversation-filler, The New Politics (to use a term inextricably linked with the last government) appears to be endogenous.

There are a bunch of political top-lines that are currently absent. None of them chime perfectly with the traditional profile of the Conservatives (though I suspect that the Lib-Dems are flexible enough to pick them up), but we are in the kind of space at the moment where politicians have the scope to adopt ideas that are both plainly good and ideologically unacceptable. We see proposals for a Youth Citizen Service, but how about an expectation of a public service ethos from people who work in the public sector?

This presents a dilemma for the Conservatives: Should the Tory ID continue to be given free reign? The one that aspires to dispose of most of the public sector and the one that won’t allow it to function properly for fear of legitimising its existence? Can The New Politics have reservations about the budget maximising habits of the public sector while now fully accepting its legitimacy with an expectation that it can become part of the solution?

Nowhere is this more evident than in local post offices. An institution that plainly isn’t going to be replaced by private enterprise, but one that successive governments of both stripes have exposed to cherry-picking from their rivals on dubious micro-economic versions of state aid grounds. This, by the way, is an institution that could be a cornerstone of The Big Society if it’s decline could be arrested.

Other questions: I find the emphasis on ‘social enterprise’ to be very unconvincing. It’s a hangover from ‘The Third Way’ and reeks of that opportunism. A need to pretend that there is a private sector way of doing things that no-one can extract any profit from suited New Labour’s need to distance itself from early proposals to nationalise corner-shops. The Tories don’t need to prove their pro-capitalist credentials. Today, they may be well served by doing the opposite.

As a term, social enterprise is becoming discredited and it’s a shame to see the new government hitching its wagon to it, instead of addressing the real reasons behind the decline in the local enterprises that genuinely could adapt to pro-social activities. Not just post-offices, but every kind of local retailer – among other kinds of business.

It’s simply not credible to talk about the need for a revival in pro-social local enterprise unless you can address the stranglehold that monopolistic retailers have on the local High Street (usually drawing the trade away from it).

I’ve also yet to see anything in many of these proposals – particularly those around education – that doesn’t look like a shill for some kind of process that amplifies the opportunities for the sharp-elbowed middle-class to appropriate a greater – hypothecated – share of the higher rates of income tax that they have to pay. Note, I emphasise income tax as opposed to ‘tax’, bearing in mind the huge flat burden that VAT places (and will, perhaps, increasingly place) on low earners.

Instead, the new politics can involve large numbers of active citizens in describing problems rather than prescribing solutions. This works well with the post-bureaucratic age schtick that the Tories were pedalling at the start of the year – breaking the monopoly on policymaking and research. It’s a position that could unite most of the country (beyond a few Whitehall fiefdoms).

I’d argue that the failings of New Labour have been sharply foregrounded by the opportunities for the Tories and – latterly – the Lib Dems – to make headway in this area.

The public service ethos is something I had a string of posts about myself a while ago, and it’s an idea that sadly has no appeal at the top of New Labour. Similarly, there is the need for a political coalition to support small business against monopolistic rivals. Both were not ideas that were only applicable to Labour – I just liked to think that Labour was the party that was most likely to adopt ideas such as these. History has shown that the Conservatives have often been quite good at picking up the easy catches that Labour has dropped, and in coalition with the Lib-Dems, perhaps this opportunity is greater now than ever before?

Perhaps this could be what The New Politics could ultimately be about? If so, it’s a great opportunity.