Why did David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ policy disappear?

The 2010 Conservative buzzword of ‘Big Society’ was repeatedly thrown in the electorate’s face as David ‘call me Dave’ Cameron and George Osborne attempted, and succeeded, in riding to power with a centre-right, arguably maybe even dead centrist, set of ideas which were designed to reduce the deficit and set Britain on a path of economic and social recovery.

I seem to vividly remember the engaging live TV debates been littered with reference after reference to the creation of a ‘Big Society’ by Mr Cameron.

Mr Cameron’s proposal to the British electorate was the latest Tory attempt to shake off the ‘nasty party’ tag and portray the Conservatives as the party of working people and of aspiration as well as, of course, retaining traditional party policies that were still, and always will be, popular with traditional Conservative voters. Mr Cameron proposed to redistribute power from Westminster to communities throughout the UK by encouraging volunteering and local groups to take control of local public services, such as managing libraries and maintaining and running museums and heritage sites. Mr Cameron said that the purpose of the policy was to reduce the role of the Government in people’s everyday lives, which would give ‘power to the people’ and take it away from the politicians.

A good idea for sure and one that should have been popular with a large proportion of voters.

But the coalition Government, certainly its Conservative members, quickly stopped talking about the idea and it slipped out of political discourse altogether soon after the 2010 election.

Why was this? Why did ‘Big Society’ get the chop after Mr Cameron could not and did not stop talking about it on the campaign trail?

Was it simply due to more pressing matters arising for the PM and the Government? Or was it down to the policy being the PM’s personal pet-project that he simply lost enthusiasm for? Many Conservatives struggled to sell the idea on the campaign trail in the run up to the 2010 general election as critic after critic suggested it was all a big façade to cover up the planned budget cuts to public services. At the time, the General Secretary of Unison Dave Prentis stated "make no mistake, this plan is all about saving money”.

Now we all know that Mr Cameron’s right hand man, Mr Osborne, was Austerity’s biggest fan so that comment could hold some traction.

However, could it also be put down to the fact that the idea had been proposed by the previous Labour administration? Voters would have remembered that Mr Brown released the White Paper ‘Communities in Control: real people, real power’ which promised “to empower communities and citizens and ensure that power is more fairly distributed across the whole of our society”. That sounds very much like ‘Big Society’, to me.

So, was the idea just to left for the traditional Tory heartlands who were so keen to be rid of 13 years of Labour policy which they argued had stagnated the economy, which was undeniably suffering dreadfully from the 2008 crash.

Or, after 13 years of Labour Government (that, to say the very least was unpopular with a large proportion of the British electorate by then) was the ‘Big Society’ policy the scapegoat the Tories craved and needed to explain why they could only muster enough seats to become the largest party in the Commons but not to form a majority administration? The election should have been a walk in the park for the Tories, surely? The Labour Party was out on its feet, tired and weary of Government and in need of a fresh injection of leadership and ideas. The Liberals talked the talk and sounded good on the campaign trail, but were never really going to command masses and masses of support. Surely this was the time for a great Tory renaissance, especially as public opinion had swung its way on key topics such as the economy, Europe and immigration. It was clear the electorate did not trust the Labour Party with the money by then.

But the 2010 general election result did not really, or convincingly, portray a Tory renaissance. Yes, Mr Cameron was in number 10 but was he really? And with what actual power? It was always going to be difficult to run a truly Conservative administration with the Liberals as partners, even though Nick Clegg proved himself to be more than spineless on several occasions; Tuition fees anyone? That debate/character assassination is for another day (and blog!).

But, I believe there lies the most plausible reason for the quick ditching of the ‘Big Society’ policy. It just did not fit with the majority of public opinion at the time. Yes, society and community cohesion was important to people then and always will be, but 2010 was a time where voters were deeply concerned with the perceived lack of direction the country was moving in and they felt that strong leadership was required. The ‘Big Society’ was a good idea, maybe one that will eventually catch on under a different banner. But in 2010, it just did not work. It just was not the time.

All the reasons mentioned are perfectly credible arguments and suggestions for why the policy of ‘Big Society’ was dropped by Mr Cameron’s Government almost as soon as he entered number 10. Not one of them is the right or only answer and the more probable explanation is that it was a combination of all the reasons discussed.

But all we do know is that as soon as the euphoria of a Tory led Government again for the first time in 13 years had died down, the ‘Big Society’ policy was binned and the 2010 election Buzzword was consigned to the political dustbin.