David Cameron and Nick Clegg plan to talk about their policy ideas for a “Big Society” on Thursday, so I suppose it might be useful to know what it is.
“It is a guiding philosophy, a society where the leading for progress is social responsibility, not state control” David Cameron said. “It includes a whole set of unifying approaches – breaking state monopolies, allowing charities, social enterprises and companies to provide public services, devolving power down to neighbourhoods, making government more accountable”.
Leaving aside the policy statements in there, it feels like an acknowledgement that “society” is not the same as “state” and that power should be decentralised, which feels liberal. But it still leaves open the question of what society is. With the use of the term “neighbourhoods”, there is an implication of hierarchy in there.
In Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe 900 – 1300, Susan Reynolds promotes the concept of society as a hierarchy of communities, headed by a monarch. Historically in England, this was expressed administratively as manors, parishes, hundreds, shires, and the royal court. In part because of the speed and limits of communication, much power was devolved, even down to the individual manor.
As the speed and ease of communication has increased, more and more power has been centralised, but this hierarchy has proved remarkably durable. Though the manor has disappeared – and the royal court has been replaced by parliament – parishes, hundreds (as districts) and shires still form the backbone of our administrative hierarchy.
This centralisation, and not just of power, has had many benefits. For example, a vast range of goods and services are now available within a trivial car journey. But this very benefit has decreased social cohesion. Many people hardly know their neighbours: they drive to the supermarket, drive their children to school, and drive to work. Opportunities for interaction within the immediate local community are limited.
Assuming this as a structure for society, where can policy help? I think both parties are united in the belief that devolution of power (and responsibility) from the state towards parishes (and ultimately individuals) is beneficial and there appears to be general agreement on policy. For example, allowing competition for local services and provision of local schools.
One area where the parties disagree is on school governance. The Conservatives want new schools to answer directly to ministers and the Liberal-Democrats want them to remain answerable to the local authority. To me, the Liberal-Democrat view is a better fit to this model of society, where a local school is answerable to a local authority. The Conservative position surprises me as it seems to run counter to the concept of decentralisation.
Another area is on local finance where the Conservatives propose freezing council tax and the Liberal-Democrats propose introducing local taxes. Again the Conservative proposal seems to run counter to the concept of decentralisation as it relies on central funding for any new local initiatives. However, the Liberal-Democrat proposal – though decentralised – feels like it will encounter fierce resistance. How would it work? Would it be an increase in local council tax or would it be, for example, a local sales tax?
For me, one significant question remains: how can policy improve social cohesion? There is no doubt social cohesion eroded over the last century, though I don’t believe we live in a “broken society.” So what local focal points remain? Pubs, local sports teams, and local schools are obvious.
Can policy decisions help these? Yes. Both parties agree on local schooling and I think funding local sports teams is relatively un-contentious. But what about pubs?
People like to get together and have fun. Like it or not, alcohol and the pub are part of this. For example pubs have band nights, darts teams and pool teams. They are where birthdays are celebrated, where the lads (or the girls) go for a night out, and where people meet for no other reason than a drink and a chat. Yet they are going out of business at a record pace.
Why? It comes down to tax policy and the ever-increasing duty on alcohol served in pubs. Binge drinking is not generally caused by pubs, or even happy hours in pubs, but is fuelled by supermarkets selling booze as a loss-leader. For example, beer now costs roughly £3 a pint (depending where you live) in a pub yet you can buy cases of lager in your local supermarket for £10. Young people, though they may go to the pub as a focal point, either drink cheap supermarket booze beforehand or conceal it and drink it at the pub.
I believe we should change this: make the pub central again by equalising the prices. One proposal is to replace the current scheme by a per-unit duty. If backed up by prevention of supermarkets using booze as a loss-leader to attract customers, this may work.
Of course, this ignores the cities where unitary authorities predominate and where the problems of social cohesion are much worse.