Initial press reaction In March 2010,
The Daily Telegraph wrote: "We demand vision from our would-be leaders, and here is one who offers a big one, of a society rebuilt from the ground up". In April 2010
The Times described the Big Society as "an impressive attempt to reframe the role of government and unleash entrepreneurial spirit". Later in the same year,
The Spectator said that "Cameron hoped to lessen financial shortfalls by raiding dormant bank accounts. It's a brilliant idea in theory". Cameron defended the policy against criticism by other commentators.
Questions concerning originality Two days after the initiative's launch in Liverpool, an article in
Liverpool Daily Post argued that community organisations in the city such as
Bradbury Fields show that Cameron's ideas are already in action and are nothing new, and that groups of community-based volunteers have for many years provided "a better service than would be achieved through the public sector". Simon Parker, Director of the
New Local Government Network, argued that although "there is little in the
coalition government's agenda that is entirely novel, what is new is the scale of change required." Ben Rogers, in an opinion piece published in the
Financial Times, suggested that "the most interesting thing about [Cameron's] speech [to the Conservative Party Conference] were its sections on the 'Big Society, and that "Most of the political problems Mr Cameron faces, from cutting crime to reducing obesity, can only be met if residents and citizens play their part". However, Rogers went on to state that "the state has so far invested very little in teaching the skills that could help people make a contribution", highlighting what he perceived to be a fundamental flaw in the programme. Cameron responded that the policy's lack of novelty does not detract from its usefulness and that it should be judged on its results. This led critics to conclude that the Big Society was intended primarily as a mechanism for reducing the size of the state.
Labour's leader
Ed Miliband said that the Conservatives were "cynically attempting to dignify its cuts agenda, by dressing up the withdrawal of support with the language of reinvigorating civic society" and suggested that the Big Society is a "cloak for the small state". Of the political weeklies, the
New Statesman said "Cameron's hope that the Big Society will replace
Big Government is reminiscent of the old Marxist belief that the state will '
wither away' as a result of victorious socialism. We all know how that turned out. Cameron has a long way to go to convince us that his vision is any less utopian". Also referring to Marx, political cartoonist
Steve Bell in
The Guardian on 21 January 2011 and
The Guardian Weekly newspaper on 28 January 2011 adapted Marx's slogan "
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" for the Big Society:
"From each according to their vulnerability, to each according to their greed". Lorie Charlesworth, an academic from the
Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, compared the system to the
Old Poor Law, and suggested that "any voluntary system for the relief of poverty is purely mythical".
Anna Coote, head of Social Policy at the independent
think-tank NEF, wrote in July 2010 that "If the state is pruned so drastically ... the effect will be a more troubled and diminished society, not a bigger one". In November 2010 a report by NEF suggested that "There are strong, sensible ideas at the heart of the 'Big Society' vision... [but] for all its potential, the 'Big Society' raises a lot of questions, which become more urgent and worrying in the light of public spending cuts".
TUC general secretary
Brendan Barber concluded that "the logic of this is that [Cameron's] ideal society is
Somalia where the state barely exists". Cameron's response was that the Big Society ideology pre-dated the implementation of cuts to public services, that the reduction in the size of the state had become inevitable, and that Big Society projects are worthwhile whatever the state of the economy. Also writing for
The Daily Telegraph,
Mary Riddell said "the sink or swim society is upon us, and woe betide the poor, the frail, the old, the sick and the dependent" whilst Gerald Warner felt that "of all the Blairesque chimeras pursued by David Cameron, none has more the resonance of a political epitaph than 'Big Society'". Sir
Stephen Bubb, Chief Executive of
ACEVO, welcomed the idea of the Big Society but claimed that Cameron was "undermining" it. Steven Kettell of the
University of Warwick has written of the intrinsic "problems surrounding the government's call to put religious groups at the centre of the Big Society agenda". In April 2012, criticisms were raised concerning the shortage of Big Society policies across Government, such as the lack of employee-owned mutuals and social enterprises in public sector reforms as well as the introduction of a cap on tax relief for charitable giving in the 2012 Budget. A report published in May 2012 suggested that the £3.3 billion cuts in government funding to the voluntary sector between 2012 and 2015 had greatly reduced the capacity of voluntary groups to implement Big Society projects. Bernard Collier expressed concern that the policy's lack of localism was "favouring big charities" and ignoring the "potential contribution of local voluntary and community organisations". In 2014, former Cameron aide Danny Kruger said that although the relevant legislation had been put in place, the policy had been downgraded from its original role due to a lack of leadership. At the same time, a
Centre for Social Justice report suggested that the policy was having least effect in the poorest in the country where it would be most useful. Cameron responded that the public sector had already failed to prevent the poorest parts of the country becoming so, and that there were examples of the Big Society having been effective in poor areas. The collapse of the Big Society Network in 2014 and criticism of the Prime Minister's relationship with it The audit highlighted cuts in charity grants and restrictions on the right to challenge government policy through the courts as undermining Big Society ideals. It noted that charities have had a decreasing role as government contractors due to policies which favoured the private sector and it pointed out that the centralisation of the British political system has not significantly decreased, with no noticeable upsurge in volunteering and social action concentrated in the wealthiest places. The
Cabinet Office responded that the
Civil Exchange report did not fairly reflect "the significant progress made". In response to a parliamentary question claiming that the Big Society had failed, the Government said that "cynics" were "entirely wrong" and that "some of the changes we have introduced are irreversible". Shortly before the 2015 election, Cameron proposed a law that would give some employees the right to three days of paid annual leave to do voluntary work. The proposal appeared in the Party's manifesto, along with a guarantee of a place on the National Citizen Service for all children and an increase the use of social impact bonds. However, the Big Society did not form a significant part of the
Conservative Party's election strategy, being replaced instead by an emphasis on economic stability and border controls. ==See also==