Party political cocktails: The ingredients to 2015 success

Which will you be ordering in 2015?

It is not unknown that the result of the hard fought Eastleigh by-election, with a voter turnout-out of 53%, was a shock to the polls, prospective candidates, leading parties and the country as a whole. Following the Chris Huhne scandal it would not have been unfair to predict a change from the usual Liberal Democrat control to what looked to be a Conservative gain and ultimately another feather in Cameron’s cap.

With a 32% share of the vote for the LibDems and a mere 25% for the Tories, UKIP emerged from being the ‘non-contender’ to the election vanquisher with a surprising 29% share, subsequently reducing the Tory vote and allowing for a LibDem triumph.

Looking ahead to the 2015 General Election, here I look at the essential ingredients needed for each of the three major parties to create a recipe for their own electoral success.

‘Cosmopolitan-Cameron’

With Cameron on the defensive following the catastrophic election results of the Eastleigh by-election last week, a picture of his political advisors and spin-doctors frantically clambering for a solution comes to mind as they desperately attempt to cling on to a second consecutive term in Government. Perhaps the following ingredients for the party’s next manifesto would serve as a thirst quenching relief.

| Europe |

The Prime Minister’s long awaited speech on the UK’s membership to the European Union (EU) left the country questioning the sincerity behind Cameron’s promise to hold a referendum on the issue in the next Parliament. This was clearly a tactic in procuring the hearts, and more importantly the votes, of the right wing members of his party – those whose loyalty has recently remained uncertain.

However, the Prime Minister would have undoubtedly been better off had he promised the referendum in 2014, a short time before the 2015 election. If the majority vote to leave the EU, then the Prime Minister would have time to decide on his course of action or carefully scripted his U-turn ready for the next Parliament – a far greater incentive for the electorate to re-elect his party into Government than the cold promise he has made.

| Economy |

Despite the UK loosing its triple ‘A’ status, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, exclaimed that he ‘will go on delivering the plan that has cut the deficit by a quarter.’ Unfortunately though, while the deficit decreases, the debt sores and the Government’s current plan will unequivocally be challenged by the electorate who have seen little sign of recovery in the years that the Conservatives would have been in power come 2015. Whether you believe the Chancellor’s strategy is working or not, it certainly won’t win votes should it be repeated in the party’s next manifesto.

| A Liberal Perspective |

Although coming under fire for his proposals and consequent reforms to equal marriage, which has unmistakably won the support of youthful generations, Cameron and his party must provide young and first-time voters an additional incentive to side with the Conservatives. Having taken a tough knock over university tuition fees the Liberal Democrats have freed up votes that the Prime Minister must now make a grab for.

‘Mojito-Miliband’

Ed Miliband’s performance at Prime Minister’s Questions could be mistaken as a repeat played on a weekly loop – one of the clearest indicators that Miliband and his party have very little direction with regards to policy, if any. However, with a manifesto flourishing of sound policies and a strong sense of ideology, the Labour party might be in with a fighting chance of snatching election victory, if they acquired such a document.

| New Leader |

Firstly then, the key ingredient to this recipe’s success is a complete new appearance. Its presentation is lacking, and that must fundamentally change.

It’s safe to say that while Miliband is at the helm, the ship will be sailing against the wind, making very little progress. Unfortunately, the public realises that Miliband lacks the competencies of leadership, whilst his party refuses to acknowledge it for the sake of appearing as a united front. If his brother, David Miliband, had won the leadership contest however, then the situation would have been completely different.

Until the party boosts in the confidence required to overhaul their leader, it will not accomplish a taste of power for some time. Perhaps, with some polishing, the rising Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Chuka Umunna, would be a strong contender?

| The Fighting Ground |

As briefly mentioned, the body of votes for the Liberal Democrats that lead to their success in the 2010 election are ‘up-for-grabs’ following the disastrous decisions that they’ve taken during their time in office – namely the rise in university tuition fees – therefore isolating their large voter base, many of which were students. The release of this portion of voters could bestow election supremacy for the party that successfully appeals to their interests.

Whilst the Labour leader enjoys the support of trade unions, of which appointed him into his position, he must begin to appeal to the more liberal of voters. An easier achievement than for Cameron. A policy on child adoption for same-sex couples would be an interesting example.

| International Intervention |

Similar to the legacy of economic recession that has loomed over the Labour party, military intervention in the Middle East branded New Labour distinctly interventionist. A drastic foreign policy that sides with limitations on foreign intervention is likely to bode well with those who have military connections and the public more generally. A policy that promises no UK military intervention in a foreign nation unless the Government secures a UN Resolution to legitimise its actions as just, exemplifies the style of foreign policy needed.

‘Caruso-Clegg’

Unfortunately for the Liberal Democrats, and for Nick Clegg moreover, the 2015 General Election is going to taste bitter. To conjure up a recipe of sweet success for this party is more likely to produce a sour poison. The declining reputation that the party are affording themselves from abandoning their promises continues to speedily disintegrate their voter base.

| New Leader |

Unlike the Labour party, a change of leader would be ineffective. Nonetheless, it would signal an end to an era that the LibDems would very much wish to forget and would allow for minor progress towards repairing its broken image.

| Housing & National Affairs |

Property construction and social benefits to first-time buyers would be a safe bet. Once again appealing to younger voters is a realistic and reliable option. Policies on the economy or foreign affairs would convey the party as unrealistic and incapable of governing. Therefore, it is essential that the Liberals first heal the wounds of domestic politics. Core domestic policies, such as housing, can allow the party to gain a foothold on the ladders of trust and influence once more. From there, the party can regroup, reorganise and rearrange themselves in preparation for an opportunity for leadership to arise once again.

The 2015 General Election will unquestionably be messy following a long period of uncertainty. Will a leading party emerge as the forerunner in the remaining years? It’s doubtful. Instead, we can expect to see a scramble for every available vote no matter what its position on the party continuum. We can also be sure to witness a head-to-head collision between the Tories and Labour party, with no indication of the LibDems as a sincere competitor in the race to power.

But, what looks increasingly likely is another hung-parliament. We already thought the political and economic situation was dreadful – it’s likely to get a lot worse.

Conservative Cocktail

Ingredients:
(12.5ml) Grenadine
(12.5ml) Chambord Black Raspberry Liqueur
(12.5ml) Strawberry Liqueur
(12.5ml) Cherry Sourz

Directions:
In shaker, mix together and strain into cocktail glass.

Labour Cocktail

Ingredients:
(25ml) Southern Comfort Lime Liqueur
(25ml) Smirnoff Vodka
(25ml) Archers Peach Schnapps
(A Dash) Blue Curacao

Directions:
In shaker, mix together, strain into cocktail glass and add a generous helping of fresh lemon juice.

Liberal Cocktail:

Ingredients:
(25ml) Ameretto
(25ml) Banana Liqueur
(25ml) Fresh Orange Juice
(30ml) A ‘Liberal’ helping of Brandy

Directions:
In shaker, mix together, strain into cocktail glass and top with lemonade

Alex Bright is the Managing Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @alexanderbright

Eastleigh, the late surge of UKIP and Cameron’s balancing act

Nigel Farage and Diane James will be smiling for some time to come. Photo: Jennifer Jane Mills (Flickr)

By-elections often follow a familiar script: a date is announced, we are told how significant the outcome will be on the ‘political landscape’, a leading candidate emerges before then it becomes a tight race where the outcome will be ‘difficult to predict’ as pollsters unconfidently bemoan the ‘margin of error’. Ultimately, the result comes through which is similar to the one initially expected and it has little effect in a wider political context.

All of that might have been the case in Eastleigh had it not been for one factor: the late surge of UKIP. For much of the campaign, the outcome was considered to be a two-horse-race between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The battle was portrayed as the two Coalition partners going ‘head-to-head’.

Ultimately, however, rather than the Conservatives, it was UKIP who narrowly missed out on taking the seat away from Nick Clegg’s party. Nigel Farage was right to say it was the Conservatives who had split the UKIP vote rather than the other way round. Today there might be a few right-leaning voters in Eastleigh cursing the fact they thought the Tories offered the best prospect of defeating the Liberal Democrats. For a party currently wielding the loudspeaker of protest in British politics, the late surge of UKIP was a surprisingly quiet one. Only until the last remaining days of the campaign did the chance of a victory even come into the picture; a Tory campaign leaflet, designed in the colours of purple and gold, proves how worried of UKIP the Conservatives had become.

So why, at the expense of the Tories, did UKIP perform so well? One thing is clear; voters vote for the eurosceptic party for a number of reasons, eurosceptism often less prominent than you’d expect; as an anti-establishment protest? In support of a more right-wing message? Or simply in support of a straight-talking, common-sense message? Perhaps the strength of the candidate locally swayed the voters? Indeed, the impressive candidate Diane James puts paid to the idea that UKIP are a group of ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists’. The words of David Cameron himself, if anything last night’s result might encourage the Prime Minister to take more seriously what is becoming his party’s most significant threat.

But does that mean tacking back to a core right-wing message to win over lost supporters? Or does it mean continuing with a centre-ground ideology to win over an increasingly liberal society? Ultimately, Cameron will have to do both. Despite Labour’s embarrassingly poor performance in Eastleigh, Ed Miliband will stroll into Number 10 by default if the Tories continue to loose support from both the left of the party and the right.

Eastleigh is a major setback, but David Cameron’s conference speech of last year suggests he understands the task in hand. Yesterday Daniel Boomsma argued that the party could learn from perhaps it’s greatest forefather, Edmund Burke. Embracing liberal laissez-faire economics at the same time as developing a moral critique of pure capitalism ‘may help get rid of the Conservatives’ toxic image’. Today, Tim Montgomerie once again calls for a ‘full spectrum, big orchestral, across-the-stage Conservatism’. To pin the party down on the liberal left or the conservative right would be the incorrect response; but the message must be clearer, more optimistic, and reflective of a ‘common ground’ rather than ‘centre ground’. Finding the right balance will be no easy task. But then why should it be; power, after all, is at stake.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

One Nation is the right direction for Labour

Photo: Plashing Vole (Flickr)

At the last general election under Gordon Brown, Labour failed to convince the electorate that it was the party to lead Britain. Despite re-branding the Conservatives, Cameron fell short of achieving an overall majority, but through a deal with Nick Clegg gained the keys to Number 10.

Three years on from the last general election, we have seen the Coalition government move from crisis to crisis. Osborne’s ‘omnishambles’ budget, a double dip recession and recently the loss of Britain’s coveted triple A credit rating. Recent polls have shown Labour to be leading the Tories by double digits, however even with poll leads and the poor economy commentators have highlighted that Labour, with a void of policy and clear direction, have nothing to offer.

Some refer back to Neil Kinnock; citing his poll leads prior to 1992 general election. Indeed, polls at this stage rarely reflect the final outcome of general elections.

Stepping aside from speculation, it is clear that three years on, the Labour Party under Ed Miliband has remained united and stable. This stability at the autumn Labour Party conference was further reinforced; Ed Miliband boldly answered his critics by re-branding Labour under his One Nation vision. A move which enabled him to rid himself once and for all of the ‘red Ed’ label, and firmly demonstrate the direction he wishes to take the nation.

The party has admitted its past mistakes, and the electorate are warming to Labour’s message. With a policy review starting to produce results, if communicated with the right policies the One Nation vision will continue to move Labour in the right direction.

However the One Nation vision may not be sufficient alone. Labour must improve the campaign on the ground. Getting their message across to voters in every marginal seat, putting the coalition cuts and people’s experiences at the centre of their argument.

Ed Miliband has done a great job in cutting ties with Labour’s past, but what he must now do is to convince the public that Britain will be better under his One Nation vision. This will not be an easy task, but with the economy in free fall and the coalition cuts beginning to bite, this is the perfect moment to lay out an alternative plan for Britain.

Martin Edobor writes about health and foreign policy. Follow on Twitter @martinedobor

The end of brand Cameron?

Photo: University Hospitals Birmingham (Flickr)

The once infallible Cameron brand is now in trouble, writes Lizzie Hepworth.

In 2005, the Tories broke with their past when they elected a leader who was, for the first time since Major, actually electable as a Prime Minister. The speech he gave to Conference, just before being elected leader, wasn’t necessarily in tune with a lot of the Party members, but whilst they may not have agreed with what he was saying, they recognised that many members of the public would.

After pinching the top spot from under the nose of David Davis, who was the favourite before Cameron delivered his note-free speech, Cameron started his marathon to Election Day. His rebrand in the early days of his leadership involved changing the Party logo to an oak tree – traditional yet environmentally friendly; a new colour scheme – still blue but going green; and a trip to visit huskies – a more compassionate Conservative genuinely concerned with the environment and dedicated to combating global warming.

All these image changes gave Cameron a big lead over Blair, increasingly unpopular after Iraq, and helped extend his honeymoon as Tory leader. The public were, to a degree, eager to get rid of Blair; his own members were pleased to be back in contention for government, whether they liked Cameron or not; and Cameron gave very little away in terms policy, allowing him to criticise Blair, but avoid difficult questions over his own policies. But these were simpler times.

Blair’s departure, the economic situation and the end of his honeymoon all coincided, and resulted in a slump in the polls. Cameron’s few policies now seemed irrelevant and out of touch with what was going on in the world. The Big Society appeared to be at odds with the cuts the Tories were proposing, and with Brown enjoying his honeymoon, Cameron began to struggle to maintain his own Party’s support. If he lost his grip on public support, his Party would follow suit, and he would revert to being the leader of a dysfunctional and divided Conservative Party. As Iain Duncan-Smith would have been able to tell him, that would have sealed his fate.

Cameron managed to maintain his position, and his new image as a compassionate Conservative was resurrected to its former glory when he entered the Coalition with Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. This has perhaps given Cameron the best opportunity he could have asked for in terms of helping him to maintain a socially liberal agenda. But it hasn’t been smooth sailing.

Whilst the Liberal Democrats have provided Cameron with an excuse for pursuing his liberal ideas, such as supporting gay marriage, his time as leader of the Coalition Government has not been great in terms of his brand. The Big Society has had numerous re-launches whilst Cameron has been in government; however it now appears to have been abandoned after all seemingly failed. Cameron was forced, perhaps by his own Party members, to exercise the veto in Europe, which has heralded as the end of cuddly Cameron, and a glimpse of “bulldog” Cameron, but appeared popular with the public. But probably the biggest threats to brand Cameron have been the fiasco over the NHS Bill, the “pasty tax” and the accusations of cash for access to Cameron.

The NHS had been the bedrock of Cameron’s brand, allowing him to associate himself with the average person, and their concerns over health care. However the delays over legislation and the forced U-turn threatened to damage Cameron’s credibility and entire brand. Whilst Cameron (and Andrew Lansley) were still licking their wounds, along came the “pasty tax” which saw the Conservative Party desperately struggling to remember when they last went to Greggs, ate a pasty and lived like the normal Briton.

Cameron himself failed to convince, as in an out of character PR failure, he recalled the last time he ate a pasty was at Cornwall Pasty Company in Leeds Railway station – a branch that closed down almost five years ago (although the travesty was more that he chose Cornwall Pasty Co over Greggs – more of a religion than a pie shop in the North). Whilst these two incidents almost certainly planted the seed of doubt in Cameron’s affinity with the average voter, they were somewhat over exaggerated by the media in terms of importance, with some terming the incident “Pastygate” which is hopefully not a serious comparison of a tax on baked goods with Watergate…but then this is the British media.

But it is the Cruddas scandal which threatens to reinforce the idea that the Tories are the same old rich gentleman’s club and a party of the rich. Whilst some believe that this scandal only reinforces what they already assumed Cameron and all politicians did, it does not help Cameron’s claim that he has reinvented the Tory Party, and certainly does not help him to connect with the voters he lost through spending cuts and unpopular policies.

Brand Cameron has broken the curse of the Tory leader in so far as Cameron is the PM. But will it last? Steve Hilton has left Number 10, but is this because he no longer believes in the Big Society, because it’s failed, because he’s been pushed or for his own reasons, and will be back before the next election? Whichever one it is, it appears the Big Society is well and truly on a backburner, and Cameron is now more concerned with being the PM, holding the Coalition together and maintaining loyalty within his Party than he is with trying to constantly maintain his new brand.

As recent opinion polls have put Ed Miliband ahead of Cameron is terms of leadership qualities (they’re all viewed as scoring minus points in terms of being a good leader, so it’s which one is the least worst than which is the best…) and the local election results, Cameron needs to maintain a degree of his new, rebranded and detoxified Conservative Party, especially if he plans to lead them into the 2015 General Election.

Lizzie Hepworth

Reflections on Blue Labour

Photo: Kat Kam (Flickr)

Blue Labour was born in April 2009. Maurice Glasman, Blue Labour’s intellectual godfather, must have had his ‘eureka-moment’ in a dusty library, ‘surrounded’ by old ideas already written down, analysed and debated in the past.

Blue Labour, as described by Glasman, is ”a deeply conservative socialism which places family, faith and work at the heart of a new politics of reciprocity, mutuality and solidarity.” Just like the Big Society, Blue Labour has been the subject of debate. The idea raised a lot of questions: Do we still have a need for big stories? Do we want a blueprint that fits society? Is Blue Labour an acceptable alternative story to adopt for Labour? And what are the similarities with Philip Blond’s Red Tory?

Obviously the answer is yes. People welcome big stories and theorists tend to answer that call. The list of ‘Big Idea’s’ in Britain has been ‘updated’ thoroughly with Cameron’s Big Society and Philip Blond’s Red Tory. Now we can add Blue Labour to that list. Ed Miliband endorsed the idea (”it’s our families, friends and the places in which we live that give us our own sense of belonging”) so the expectations are high.

Glasman’s idea for a Blue Labour isn’t original; it’s quite the contrary actually. Blue Labour first of all tries to recover a Labour strand buried somewhere in the early 20th-century. Glasman’s idea is based on the idea that Labour’s fundaments have been obscured since the establishment of the welfare state since 1945. Glasman’s analysis comes straight from Blond’s Red Tory idea (‘Red Tory: How Left and Right have Broken Britain and How we can Fix It’). Blond stated that ”our ills” derive from the 1945 settlement which ”effectually nationalised society.” The welfare state carried on all the roles that community and family used to do. Blond labels this ”self sufficient individualism”.

Glasman used Blond’s conclusions and applied them to his own party. It’s left individualism that obscured Labour’s traditions and made disappear society as a ”functioning moral entity”. Glasman blames Nye Bevan and Clement Attlee, social democrats that shaped postwar Britain, for producing a bureaucratic state, which culminated in the ”managerialism” of New Labour. Blond blames the left as a whole for creating a top-down, technocratic and centralized state. Blairites drew the same conclusion from a different analysis, arguing for post-bureaucratic state.

Blue Labour is deeply opposed to globalised capitalism because it threatens their constituency. The starting point, Glasman says, is marked by the end of New Labour economics. In an article in The New Statesman (‘Dave must take the Red Tory turn’, 2 October 2011) Blond proclaimed that his idea tends to fill the ‘ideological poverty’ that has occurred after the eighties and nineties. It’s worth citing the whole phrase: ”When economics and social paradigms shift, the politics that prevails is the one that most quickly adapts to new circumstances in the light of its core beliefs. Labour determined the shape of post-1945 politics. Margaret Thatcher dominated after 1979. But nobody has yet come forward to shape the politics of the post-financial crisis era.”

Glasman tries to outplay the Conservatives with his idea but it seems Red Tory and Blue Labour are two of a kind. Glasman and Blond depart though when it comes to Christianity. Blond, a former theology lecturer at the University of Cumbria, argues that Christian values are essential to society (Oliver Kamm, writer and journalist for the Times, expressed his fear that the Red Tory hawks back to ”Christian paternalism”), Glasman does not mention them at all. Blue Labour is based on the traditional working class values. In that sense the big difference between Blue Labour and Red Tory is, paradoxically, socialism. Both have a different interpretation of the term ‘socialism’. It does not mean the ‘social movement’ or the socialist, former Marxist, settlement. Socialism means mutual solidarity, community and the values of family. They both reject the state focused theory of traditional socialism.

If we depart from the thesis that the welfare state was Britain’s, and indeed Europe’s, ”last great attempt to organize society from the common good” (‘Labour is already to Blue’, Guardian, April 2011), Blue Labour is quite a toxic because we don’t know what Glasman’s alternative is. What can we derive from his idea apart from the abstract theory on community and the revitalization of Labour’s postwar values? Does he want to abolish the welfare state? Obviously, that will empower markets. Does he want to stand up against markets? Obviously, you need a central authority in order to ‘tame the beast’. State and market will remain big powers either way and you can’t leave community to the mercy of both. Glasman should decide whether he wants to shape his idea trough the state or not.

Blue Labour is essentially the opposite of liberalism. Liberals could compromise with small c-conservatism but conservative socialism is a bridge to far. The rejection of individualism – Blond called liberalism (and the left) the first individualist ideology – is unacceptable for any decent liberal. Glasman’s idea is based on a notion of communitarianism which is by itself not necessarily incompatible with liberalism. But liberals believe that the communitarian vision is premised upon sameness whereas the Glasman does not see the value of the individual in relation to society.

I doubt if Blue Labour can be an alternative for the Labour party. It’s strongly reactionary concerning globalisation and internationalisation. At the same time it’s deeply nostalgic. What I want to argue is that Blue Labour has two main problems. First of all it’s extremely political (Cameron’s Big Society is quite the contrary!). It opposes right-wing liberals, social-liberals as well as the center left way of thinking and leaves no room for a compromise. Secondly, it builds on, as brilliantly expressed by Billy Brogg in The Guardian, an ”idealized insular vision of the past”. If Glasman wants to capture Labour politics, he needs to take off the old coat.

Daniel Boomsma

This article featured in the first issue of NuPolitics Magazine, which you can read here.

No Big Society without a strong government

When using ‘Big Society’ rhetoric, David Cameron must realise that it’s a government’s job to prepare society for more responsibility, writes Daniel Boomsma.

“It is a guiding philosophy, a society where the leading force for progress is social responsibility, not state control”. This is the very essence of the idea of the Big Society. Empowering communities should lead to a society where people can run post offices, libraries, transport services and shape housing projects. But since Prime Minister David Cameron launched his ‘Big Idea’ in July 2010, it has been subject of debate. Those who oppose the Prime Minister’s plans often state that it’s just a cover for substantial cuts in public services.

The most fundamental critique however, should be based on a long term vision of Britain’s future: mending a broken society. In order to do so, the Tories must realise that the Big Society is not the ‘mending-tool’, it’s the other way around: it’s a government’s job to prepare society for more responsibility. This approach would increase the chances of success of a project that more people than just the Tories are willing to endorse.

Britain has a tradition when it comes to radical thinking on state and society. In an elaborate essay, The Economist analysed this ”outsized role promoting radical thought” by falling back on the 19th century philosophy of John Stuart Mill and other New Liberals (also known as social liberalism). The night-watchman state was a generally accepted concept in Britain until the 19th century’s ‘wave’ of (philosophical) modernisation and reform. Mill and others couldn’t accept the fact that, with ”liberty flourishing”, still many people lived in poverty and misery. It was this thought that lead to the idea of aiming at an active state instead of a night-watchman state. This would eventually lead to compulsory education, laws on labour and other social legislation and an increase of tax-funded public services.

Anti-state sentiments – The Constitution of Liberty by Friedrich Hayek (who, on his turn, influenced great economic theorists such as Milton Friedman and John Hicks) of course as one of the most famous libertarian works – rose again after the destruction of the Second World war, though classical liberal philosopher Herbert Spencer already rejected the 19th century ideas on reform and modernisation in his book The Man versus the State, written in 1884. These sentiments are still very much alive today.

The developments I mentioned above resulted in what we call the idea of the post-bureaucratic state, originally formulated by former Labour leader, and pragmatist, Tony Blair. It’s testimony to this way of thinking that the state itself is bureaucratic by definition. Therefore state services should be outsourced to third parties (in the private sector). You can also, in a way, call this a characterisation of Thatcherism.

So when we look at Britain’s history, the idea of a big society isn’t really new and it’s certainly not an original ‘Tory conception’.

It is relatively new however in the sense that it calls on localism rather than the same old right-wing creed of ‘more market less state’. That’s why most political parties do not necessarily reject the idea of a Big Society. In fact, they are even willing to endorse it.

Blue Labour for example is a movement within the Labour party that endorses the idea. Rethinking the creation of the welfare state in 1945 is Blue Labour’s central theme; It’s not just about redistributing the wealth but also about giving power back to local communities. ‘Intellectual godfather’ of this response to the Big Society, Lord Maurice Glasman, made some strikingly true comments on the post war welfare state: “1945 was a wonderful achievement of solidarity. But the sting in the tail of 1945 was that it broke all the mutual solidarity – the ways we took care of each other – and handed them over to the state.” It’s this historical perspective that makes the Big Society interesting and worth the effort for more people than just Conservatives or hardcore rightists.

However, you have to meet some very important criteria if you want the Big Society to work. Local communities can do a lot by themselves, I’m absolutely sure about that. But in order to enable communities, and society as a whole, to ‘regain ground’ you need resources and the helping hand of a government. Reshaping the order of communities as we know it isn’t just a matter of pulling out some stops.

In order to create a real ‘post-welfare state’ Britain – the idea of a big society obviously aims at reinforcing communities but will certainly influence Britain’s society as a whole, causing a policy that’s no longer focused on the state/market dichotomy – Cameron has to do something quite contradictory to conservative
policy: start at the left and slowly move to the centre. A so called top-down traditional leftish strategy.

Mending a broken society by cutting away vital elements of the state isn’t going to work. The New Economic Foundation (NEF) correctly pointed out that “if the state is pruned [too] drastically…the effect will be a more troubled and diminished society, not a bigger one”. That’s why Cameron should start working the other way around. He said it himself: “We should not be naive enough to think that simply if government rolls back and does less, then miraculously society will spring up and do more. The truth is [that] we need a government that helps to build a big society.”

Daniel Boomsma