David Cameron's Big Idea, also known as Big Society, is anything but new. The idea of working people controlling the resources of society is a very old idea and ironically one that grew up in opposition to just the politics Cameron espouses.
Unlike one of his Tory forebears, Margaret Thatcher, it seems Cameron doesn't believe that "there is no such thing as society"; rather he believes that it's not big enough. His neo-conservative approach to politics is the undying belief that market competition and privatisation of the state's assets is the best bet for improving the social good. It's clearly not based on any empirical evidence since the latest round of market-inspired competition for profit led to the biggest financial crash anyone can remember. So it is definitely a gamble, a bet, and one which has a history of losses.
But it is interesting to see how the right wing ideologues have appropriated key words such as "radical", "progressive", "modernising", and even "reforming", to describe a project which involves a substantial transfer of control away from democratic bodies to private industry and their owners. And since the Tory party has been so committed to handing over more and more of the state assets to private companies, how do they square that with claims from Cameron that they want to see a shift of power to ordinary working people?
Of course, Blair, Brown, Mandleson, Alistair Cambell, et al, were masters of spin, redefining and using their own vocabulary to shift the political agenda to the right, so much so that the word "modernise" came to represent privatising, selling off, sacking people, but without evoking a public response to the carnage. Such is spin.
The radical left, as contrasted with the pretend social democratic left, has long given strong support to the idea of working people having control of the means of production. So where's the difference between Cameron's idea and the long-standing idea of workers' control?
Are local neighbourhoods going to get the veto on the placing of yet another mega-market in their area? Are local people going to be able to decide that instead of building luxury homes for the rich, the property company will have to build affordable homes for working class people?
Article comments
1 - Dr Dreadful
At least when Thatcher's government was privatising everything in sight they had a concrete vision for transferring power to the populace, in that ordinary people were actively encouraged to go out and buy shares in the assets which were being privatised.
I'm not against Cameron's Big Society idea per se, but it does all seem a bit vague, like most things in modern politics.
2 - John Wilson
Good article. Camerons plan is basically a swindle designed to place control in the hands of the few who will offer unpalatable choices to the many and declare that those many have control.
3 - Bob Lloyd
At least when Thatcher's government was privatising everything in sight they had a concrete vision for transferring power to the populace, in that ordinary people were actively encouraged to go out and buy shares in the assets which were being privatised.
Except that the power and the wealth went to private capital. The selling off of state assets didn't transfer power to ordinary folk, they just ended up owning small amounts of shares.
The real money went to those who bought large-scale state assets at knock-down prices and were then able to make large profits selling back the services to the state and on the open market.
The concrete vision Thatcher had wasn't about transferring power to ordinary people at all. She in fact did everything she could to reduce the power exercised by ordinary people whether in the workplace or local government.
She was keen on privatisation because of her belief in the overwhelming benificence of the market. We've just seen how that pans out.
4 - Dr Dreadful
Good points, Bob. Also, the irony of the people being asked to buy shares in what, technically, they already owned does not and did not escape me!
I'm sure that if you asked Thatcher about it now (which might not get you very far, as unfortunately she's suffering from dementia exacerbated by a series of strokes), she'd insist that her free-market policies would have worked had it not been for uncontrollable regulatory tendencies on the part of those in the Conservative Party who inherited the reins of power from her.
Have you read Thatcher's memoirs, BTW? They're fascinating, pretty candid, and give a great insight into her ideals and the way she ran government - probably a lot more so than she intended.
5 - Bob Lloyd
had it not been for uncontrollable regulatory tendencies on the part of those in the Conservative Party who inherited the reins of power from her.
The regulation argument doesn't really fly since with or without regulation, capitalism plunges into crises. There's an excellent analysis of this argument in Brenner's The Economics of Global Turbulence where he goes through all the implications of the theory and the evidence from economic data.
I took a look at her memoires but felt a violent retching feeling :)
6 - John Wilson
Memoirs ALWAYS serve for self-promotion and denigration of ones enemies. Memoirs are only amusing if they are by an amusing person and Thatcher was not.