The UK government, particularly the Prime Minister is passionate about and determined to create "The Big Society" in the United Kingdom. Among the many debates with regards to the subject, the first is the meaning of the term. What does "big society" really means. Nobody seems to be clear about it. Everybody including the Prime Minister and his cabinet have got their personal reality and interpretation but are unable to clearly communicate it. It appears though that "The Big Society" is about people volunteering to help others.
I would agree that over the years people have become selfish and society has as a whole become more disintegrated and self-centred. This has worsened in the last twenty years or so where an emphasis has been on individual achievement whether as a person or an organisation. This emphasis has been promoted by governments in most developed and developing countries. Therefore, selfishness and greed has flourished, and society and individuals caring for each other has diminished. Care or caring as such has become a commodity based on market economy. If you are rich or can afford it, you can buy the care or caring you or your loved ones need. If you can't afford it you may do the best you can and tough luck be your friend.
In the UK up to now, the state has some statutory responsibility for caring for people in need. This has been available through national and/or local organisations. These organisations have been funded and managed by the state. The funding has come from tax revenue raised by the state. For example, the National Health Service has been responsible for providing health care to those who needed it free at the point of delivery. National Insurance provides towards unemployment benefits, sickness benefits and state pension. Revenue from taxation also help local authorities make social and welfare provisions at a local level. Although these are state funded and managed services, in the last twenty years, the private and voluntary sectors have also benefited by being contracted to provide some of these services.
However, because of the fiscal deficit the state has accrued in the last few years and the government's haste in reducing this deficit, the government is drastically cutting back the funding that these state run services and organisations have had in the past. This means that these services have to be trimmed accordingly. At the same time, the government is also reforming some of the national institutions, the main one being the National Health Service. Whatever happens, the needy will still be there. It was initially envisaged that the private sector will be able to fill this gap. However, as there is very little money and some services are not profitable for the private sector, it is highly likely that they will only take on the profitable services. A big chunk of unprofitable services will be left unattended.
In my opinion, this is where the "Big Society" comes in. The idea is that those people who have lost their jobs and those who haven't, volunteer to to fill the gap created by the state reforms and state withdrawal from public services as a result of the funding crisis. The services that get rejected by the private sector and can't be run by the state sector because of lack of funding will hopefully be taken on by the voluntary sector. In principle the idea is very good. However, the process of getting it implemented is very poor because it is ill defined and generally lacking in coherence. There is also a misguided expectation that it will be adopted willingly by the voluntary sector despite the fact that there are no funding or support identified for this process.
Another problem is that it appears to be dividing society in two separate groups. There is a rich well to do group who continues to enjoy their riches and lead a jolly carefree life. Tax loopholes are created so they can get away with paying as little tax as possible. Whilst they contribute little, they continue to benefit from universal goods and services. The other poorer group in comparison is taxed to the hilt, their services curtailed and they are asked to form a "big society" and take care of themselves. And while they do so the state distances itself from them whilst aligning with the rich.
The "Big Society" can work but only if we are all in together. The poorer group doing the work whilst the richer group hand over some of their monies to fund the projects.
WHAT WE NEED IS SOME GOOD OLD FASHIONED PHILANTHROPY not just empty rhetorics!
Good bye and good luck until the next time
