Now it has been criticised as being a fig-leaf for the cuts, which some charity workers say ultimately will undermine its success.
But Prime Minister David Cameron is having none of it, determined to push forward with his Big Society mission with evangelistic zeal.
He has been on the offensive, setting out once again what the Big Society means and trying to fend off the criticism in a series of articles, speeches, and interviews.
Mr Cameron said that the need to cut public spending and the Big Society initiative were not related. Describing the initiative as his “passion”, he said he had been talking about it since he had been elected as Tory leader five years ago.
“It’s not a cover for anything, it is a good thing to try and build a bigger and stronger society whatever is happening to public spending,” he said at an event for social entrepreneurs.
Taking Responsibility
He said he kept talking about the Big Society “because it is what I care about” adding that was why it was in his manifesto “rather than just because it makes a great headline on the Ten O'Clock News”.
But the initiative has been a tough sell for Mr Cameron in the past because it does not have a single simple overarching area of action.
He tried to explain the broader concept behind it in a statement: “Too many people have stopped taking responsibility for their lives and for the people around them. Why? Now I don’t think this has happened because we’ve somehow become bad people. I think at its core, it’s the consequence of years and years of Big Government.
“As the state got bigger and more powerful, it took away from people more and more things that they should and could be doing for themselves, for their families and their neighbours. It’s the culture of rules, targets, laws, tick boxes, and perverse signals that pay people to sit on the sofa rather than go to work.”
Next The concrete changes lie in three main areas
The concrete changes lie in three main areas
The concrete changes lie in three main areas: empowering local communities; opening up public services to charities and organisations; and enabling and encouraging people to play a more active role in society.
In a letter to the Guardian, the prime minister said: “The first objection is that it is too vague. I reject that. True, it doesn’t follow some grand plan or central design. But that’s because the whole approach of building a bigger, stronger, more active society involves something of a revolt against the top-down, statist approach of recent years.”
He said that the Big Society initiative brought concrete measures to bear upon the issues that hamper social initiatives.
“For example, if neighbours want to take over the running of a post office, park, or playground, we will help them. If a charity or a faith group want to set up a great new school in the state sector, we'll let them. And if someone wants to help out with children, we will sweep away the criminal record checks and health and safety laws that stop them.”
Labour leader Ed Miliband said that by “front-loading” the council cuts (meaning the cuts are heavier in the early years) he was preventing them from adapting and finding savings elsewhere.
“What Mr Cameron doesn’t seem to realise is that because he’s cutting too far and too fast he is undermining the very idea he claims to champion,” he told the BBC.
“If he claims to support the Big Society then he should be worried about the closure of local libraries, the threat to children’s centres, the closure of Citizens Advice Bureau services, because all of those things are a crucial part of the Big Society and if he carries on as he is they are going to shut down and he is going to undermine the very idea he claims is his mission in politics.”
Sir Stephen Bubb, head of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, said that he supported the idea of the Big Society, but was worried about the cuts.
He told the prime minister at the event on Monday: “Much of this is coming from local councils. I think you need to think about how you say to local councils the cuts they are making are disproportionate, they are hurting disadvantaged communities.”
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said in a statement: “The most worrying thing about the Big Society is that the prime minister truly believes that polices of slash, burn, and sack will make all our lives better, and not just for those for whom he is planning tax cuts.
“The logic of this is that his ideal society is Somalia where the state barely exists, and his hell the Scandinavian societies that the rest of us admire for combining quality services, equality, and dynamic economies.”
Friends Read Free