The big con of the Big Society – and Labour’s co-operative alternative

By Stephen Twigg MP

My constituency of Liverpool West Derby already has the kind of vibrant community and voluntary sector that David Cameron’s ‘big society’ purports to be trying to create. The sector involves groups such as Kinship Carers, which supports grandparents with caring responsibilities; Chrysalis, which provides a voice for families living with the horror of domestic violence; and the Communiversity, which provides jobs, training and apprenticeships for hundreds of local people. These groups have managed to thrive despite the apparent hindrance of the state.

David Cameron chose Liverpool to unveil his own version of the “Big Society”. The idea underpinning his vision is that communities can be given more power to run themselves when freed of the shackles of state authority, and that community-minded individuals and voluntary-groups can take on the challenge of running certain public services.

It all sounds very exciting, doesn’t it? Dressed up in a language of civic activism and community reinvigoration, much that surrounds the Big Society even sounds plausibly left-of-centre. Which Labour minded person wouldn’t want to make “the families, networks, neighbourhoods and communities that form the fabric of so much of our everyday lives [...] much bigger and stronger”? In theory, it is a million miles away from the Thatcher mantra that there is “no such thing as Society”.

Sadly, there is a yawning abyss between the communitarian language and the right-wing reality. In truth, the Big Society is little more than convenient rhetorical dressing for a dramatic shrinking of the state, the likes of which we haven’t seen since the 1980′s. Public Sector workers will be laid off in their droves, and us and charities will be asked to fill the vacuum. There is little wonder that Tory activists found it hard to “sell” the idea on the doorstep.

It was David Davis MP who described it most starkly:

“The corollary of the Big Society is the smaller state. If you talk about the small state, people think that you are Attila the Hun. If you talk about the big society they think that you are Mother Theresa”.

The government has also, as part of the “Big Society” mission, made bold claims about the future role of mutuals and Co-operatives in public services and our economy. This sounds appealing to co-operators. But the reality, again, is different. For example, the Audit Commission has been (foolishly) scrapped, but there are apparently plans afoot for a “workers buyout”. The early signs are, however, that this could actually be a management buyout. We have been here before, and this has traditionally been a precursor to full-blown privatisation.

Indeed, the government, after talking up their co-operative credentials, are piling up betrayals of our movement thick and fast. Vince Cable talked up the prospects for the remutualisation of Northern Rock in opposition, but has now ruled it out. George Osborne’s “Emergency” Budget cut support for community buyouts of pubs. The Department for International Development has cut support for Fair Trade – a key Co-operative Party campaign. Time and time again, the Tories and Lib Dems have shown that they not only misunderstand co-operative values, but that they are interested in pursuing policies which push in the exact opposite direction.

In reality, it is Labour that is pushing hardest on realising the co-operative ideal. Each of the five leadership candidates have pledged to remutualise Northern Rock. The Labour government arguably did more for Credit Unions and mutuals than any in our political history. The 2010 Labour Party manifesto contained no fewer than twenty-four Co-operative Party policies. There is a coherence to the Labour approach, which the Big Society utterly lacks. This is because the Labour and Co-operative movements have grown up together. The reason that Labour and Co-op MPs take ‘dual nationality’ is that the best route to achieving co-operative policies is through working alongside the only other party that truly understands mutalism; Labour.

The future looks very bright in this regard. All of our leadership candidates have solid Co-operative credentials. Particularly exciting is David Miliband’s proposal for a “British Broadcasting Co-operative”, which would transform the way the BBC Trust is operated. The Tory approach, by contrast seems to be to simply cut the organisation down to size. The contrast is obvious; Labour wishes to use the co-operative ideal to improve service quality, whilst the government has jumped at the first opportunity to attack public service broadcasting. A healthy civil society lies at the heart of progressive politics. Sometimes we have neglected its role and given too much emphasis to the state. We must not cede this important territory to the Tories. Mutuals can improve the lives of local communities – let us lead this debate. Effective public services and a vibrant voluntary sector need not be alternative options- in partnership they show us the way forward.