The Big Society, and why the Conservative Party is its worst enemy

I was listening to Shaun Bailey, one of the new Conservative envoys for the Big Society, on the BBC yesterday evening. He was being treated courteously enough, although the questioning was robust, and then he said something that really caught my attention, claiming that there was no civic society in this country. Now, I don't know much about Hammersmith, the seat he fought at the General Election, or about whether he gets out much, but I do know one thing. He's wrong.

Not only is he wrong, but the approach of his colleagues is designed to put the backs up of all of the very people who might be core to what they purport to seek. The threatened closure of much loved facilities, combined with suggestions that local communities take them over is too transparent. There is an evident stick, without even the illusion of a carrot. Combine that with the message that dramatic cuts are required in public spending, and Eric Pickles' caveman approach to relations between central and local government, and you create the perfect climate for cynicism. Labour, who did more to discourage volunteerism, now find themselves presented with an open goal.

As the Presidential consort, I met Liberal Democrats across the country, and one of the things I noticed again and again was how many of our members and supporters were active in their community. Not just as political activists, but as church wardens, scout troop leaders, friends of this, volunteers in that, giving of their spare time without fuss or expectation of reward. As a Londoner, I was impressed, as I had never really engaged in, or been engaged by, local community groups.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not seeking to claim that Liberal Democrats are particularly virtuous. Indeed, I'm sure that members of all political parties do similar things. Put simply, there is, unbidden by government, plenty of civic society out there.

My own, rather small, village is a case in point. Without any facilities, the social life of Creeting St Peter is a bit limited, and the only communal space we have is the church hall. However, the Parochial Church Council felt that a monthly coffee morning would be a good way to bring the community together, and so they organised it. So far, it's been a huge success, and it provides an excuse for people to meet and chat.

What communities like ours need is not a Big Society, but the opportunity, and the freedom, to form our own community structures. Don't send us volunteer co-ordinators, just take away the barriers that make community activism more hassle than it's worth. Call it civic society, if you like, talk about strengthening it, if you must, but don't force it. Civic society has strong roots where people take pride in their surroundings and where the state treads lightly.

Civic society is one of the big dividing lines between the three parties. The Conservatives do see it as a way of reducing the size of the State, regardless of what David Cameron might claim. Labour don't trust it, as the notion of individual communities going their own way is the antithesis of 'big government'. Liberal Democrats see it as a way of devolving power to those best equipped to make decisions appropriate for those impacted by them. It might not be the cheapest option, it probably won't produce consistency, but it will create a sense of community engagement. In other words, give people genuine choices, and the information needed to make the best decisions, and they'll get involved.

But if the Big Society is genuinely meant, and the Conservative element of the Coalition want it to succeed, they need to be much smarter. Firstly, if you want community involvement, you need to engage with whatever already exists. In Suffolk, the Conservative-run County Council is incredibly bad at that, preferring to announce that it is going to divest itself of services and only then casting around for someone to take them on.

You also need to support the transition. Cutting the budgets of key voluntary sector groups isn't support, in case anyone asks. If you must cut their grants, do it in such a way that allows them to adapt.

Finally, accept that society has changed. With households where both adults work, the time available for voluntary activity diminishes. Government has stepped into that breach, paying people to do things that once might have been done by a young mother, or a woman whose children have moved out. These people aren't just going to materialise once the government withdraws. Instead, think about whether these things need to be done at all.

So, Shaun, come and pay us a visit in mid-Suffolk. Ros and I can show you around, meet a few of our friends, explain how civic society works in a rural community. You might be surprised at what you find...

Thoughts from the Train: is a loss of respect for public service fatal for the 'Big Society'?

I've been dwelling on the question of public service this weekend, and as someone who celebrated twenty-four years as a civil servant in the past week, mostly on the front line, I'm more prone than most to wonder about the morals and ethics of government and governance.

For a long time now, I've argued that government is there to enable as far as is reasonable whilst encouraging initiative and personal responsibility. In my day job, I try as far as possible to adhere to that philosophy, but it is made harder by the increasingly strained relationship between administration and the public.

You see, over the best part of a quarter century, I've had a front row seat as first deference and then respect have been eroded. The loss of deference was undoubtedly a good thing, as it encouraged that curiously British notion that the bureaucracy knew best. It didn't but, unchallenged, it tended to take the view that intervention was a good thing, and that public concern would go away if left for long enough. On the other hand, civil servants were generally well trained, supported by a hierarchy of management who knew more than the person below them in the food chain, and steeped in a ethos of public service as a contribution to civil society.

When I started at London North West Collection in October 1986, my senior manager still clung to a hierarchical model of management that reflected an almost military sense of order. Managers were referred to by their title and surname, duties were clearly delineated, and one knew one's place. There were books of manuals, defining what you would do in any given circumstance, and a proper training system.

Those whom we dealt with, referred to as taxpayers, knew the 'rules' too. They knew what our approach was, arguments were rare (although excuses for non-payment were anything but!), and there was an understanding that, whilst we weren't popular, we were doing a job that needed to be done. But as the years unfolded, the corrosive impact of market-based reforms, years of ideology-based abuse from senior politicians and the media, and a dismantling of the professional core of the civil service had an effect.

And now we are where we are. My colleagues struggle to handle callers, now referred to as customers, who believe that their interpretation of tax law is far superior to that of people paid to deal with tax professionally, even where they have actual knowledge. They believe that if they tell us something, with sufficient emphasis, we will quietly accept it, regardless of the prescriptions of legislation. Accountants, especially from the Big Four, increasingly seem to communicate on the basis that any junior member of our staff is stupid and feckless, and the idea that we might work post in the order that it reaches us is a notion that only applies to other people. It might depress me, if I let it. It does depress some of my colleagues...

As the devaluation of public service continues, cutting professional training, turning consistency into rigid process that does not reflect the individuality of circumstance, there is a price to be paid. The demand for performance data creates an army of public sector staff who count things rather than doing anything, adding to the cost of service delivery, frustrating those on the front line who, instead of acting, are reduced to justifying. The relationship between public and the public sector becomes more fractious, again increasing costs.

If we are serious about increasing community involvement in the delivery of public services, we have to rebuild that respect. If volunteers experience for themselves the low regard in which social workers, tax officials and railway staff (to name but three generally maligned groups) are held, their sense of altruism and community spirit might well be lost. If that happens to the extent where the voluntary sector is unable to function, forcing society to fall back on the 'man from the council/Government', we will all lose something potentially precious, the idea of a vibrant civil society, where people take part because it matters to them.

And with that will come the final triumph of the notion that there is no such thing as society, only men and women...