There is little for which we can thank Gordon Brown. But little is not the same as nothing. Something that he has achieved has been to test to destruction over a long period of time the idea that governments can solve problems by a centralized ‘Statist’ approach backed up by a torrent of cash. His results have been so miserable (including in areas such as drug and alcohol abuse, family breakdown, educational achievement, welfare dependency and healthcare outcomes), that ironically he has actually been an unwitting but highly effective ambassador for those who want to see a smaller state and an increased role for individuals, families and communities as the key agents for change and social progress. A notion that lies at the heart of what Conservatives have more recently termed The Big Society.
Sadly these kind of debates - about the way a civilized society might provide the services and basic protections that we have rightly come to expect have received precious little airtime. Hardly surprising when the economy has been in such dire straights and discussion of cutting the debt has crowded out most other issues. And this is a shame not least because in this area at least there is a vast expanse of much-craved clear blue water between the two major parties. On the one hand the command and control centrists (Labour now have more people working in quangos than we have trained soldiers) and on the other, those who wish to see the State’s role, as direct provider at least, reduced in favour of the charities, communities, businesses, individuals, families, unions, churches, co-operatives, social enterprises et al who might be trusted to take up the challenges instead.
So what does The Big Society mean?
Firstly, it means localism or subsidiarity. The idea that decisions and responsibilities should be taken on at the most local level possible. This requires communities to be freed up from centralized control and trusted to make decisions. It means for example providing social enterprises with funding (without burdensome application procedures that tend to give larger state/state-backed organizations unfair leverage in the bidding process), an environment with less red tape (especially health and safety) and a backdrop that is not overshadowed by a compensation culture that may frighten off many from getting involved.
Secondly, it means greater individual choice. We can see this in several areas of Conservative policy. In education where more providers are to come into the market and where parents (not bureaucrats) are to decide where their children go to school. In Health where patients are to choose where they are treated. In law and order where local people can elect their own police chief (on the basis that they know the local priorities they would like them to address).
Thirdly, it is about transparency. If we are to empower people to take decisions we should make sure they have the information they need to ensure that these decisions are well informed. Technology has made transparency so much easier to deliver, with for example, the Internet being a platform on which millions might have access to the details of government contracts (price, terms etc) such that those who feel that they can provide these contracts at better value and/or quality could make their case. This might be a community organization that believes it can provide more effective and efficient rehabilitation for addicts or an agency that believes it can provide superior services for getting the unemployed back into long term work.
Fourthly, it means government acting directly to facilitate change on the ground with Conservative plans envisaging the recruitment and training of thousands of community organizers whose remit will be to identify and support local organizations and individuals who are capable of doing more. America has pioneered the way (with President Obama having worked as a community organizer in Chicago earlier in his career). For those who argue that such widespread interest in community involvement does not exist then consider this - we have almost 30,000 faith-based charities alone.
Whatever the outcome of the election (and you may well know the result by the time you read this) the approach embodied in The Big Society deserves real debate and public engagement. If the Conservatives have won then you should see some of these big ideas working in practice. And if we have lost? Sorry but expect more of the same and very little else for which to thank Mr Brown.