Do as I say, not as I do: the ‘Big Society’ is a sham

“A critical element in the GOP’s attempt to unravel the 20th century’s welfare state is the argument that individual charity will step in to help those in need… This is also behind David Cameron’s much more modest attempt to move from Big Government to what he has called Big Society.”

Sullivan assesses how much Paul Ryan has given in charity and the difference between how much he and Barack Obama gives. In 2010 Paul Ryan gave 1.2% of his income to charity whereas Obama gave 14.2%. It is also worth pointing out that those in the lowest fifth of incomes bracket gave an average of 4.3% of their incomes to charities. Andrew Sullivan points out:

“But it’s Ryan who is the most prominent advocate of replacing state care with private charity. It’s just that others will have to supply the charity. Judging by his past, he sure won’t.”

I think Ryan’s economic policies are callous, but it’s even more disgusting when he personally doesn’t do that much to help those he would hurt with his governmental cutbacks.

In the UK we don’t have neo-liberals of the Ayn Rand maximum madness variety teetering on the brink of power. Instead we have David Cameron and the Coalition government who claim that it’s the necessity of destroying debt that’s driving them to cut back government. You might be tempted to believe that isn’t the sole reason considering so many of them worship at the altar of Thatcher, the deity of shrinking the state.

The Conservatives have put forward their vision of a country in which the state does less work but society does more. The Big Society is the idea that the British public volunteer their time to charitable causes. Volunteering and charities are undeniably important and do brilliant work, but I do not think we can expect them to take over many of the responsibilities the state is giving up. This is especially the case when a large bulk of the finances of charities are made up of grants from the government.

The problem for proponents of the Big Society is that their own actions betray its weaknesses. A study by the website www.the-big-society.co.uk shows that, of those who replied, only 8% of Coalition MPs do voluntary work. As the website tartly remarks, ‘Are we really all in this together? Only time will tell.’

When politicians on both sides of the Atlantic cut the state and hope to see society pick up the pieces you would expect them to do as much as they can to volunteer and help charities. Instead we see people loving the big society, but from a distance.

Recent Posts on Notebook

• Justice for sale but who pays for the cost?
• The Road to the Ultra-Trail du Mont Blanc - Majorca 70.3 Ironman
• The Retail Ready People project means the future of the high street is in your hands
• Don't get mad about Amazon and make the right ethical choice
• Chagos: Conservationists are swimming in murky waters

• http://www.facebook.com/chris.finnie Chris Hussein Finnie

  Thank you Ben for pointing out the blatant lies of Mr Ryan. Mr Romney, his wife claims, tithes to his church. This, while still a lower percentage than Mr Obama gives, goes to pay for things like Morman missionary work to convert unbelievers, posthumously baptising people who didn’t ask for it, and fighting same-sex marriage laws in various states. For all I know, it may have gone to buy the Utah television station that is refusing to run a new comedy program about a surrogate mother for a same-sex couple. The station is owned by the Mormon church. I assume the money to buy it came from the donations of the faithful. However, little of that money goes to charity work that I’m aware of. In fairness, individual Mormon churches do sponsor food banks. Though I don’t know if they’re open to the general public.

• greggf

  “The Conservatives have put forward their vision of a country in which the state does less work but society does more.”

  I’m not sure your reversible link is the answer because it institutes a situation that is at the root of the whole economic problem. It is Big Government that has led the Western world, and subsequently the rest, into the current depression. Mainly through excessive debt needed to fund its “operations” most of which are unproductive and becoming too big for the productive part (most of private enterprise) to support. The USSR failed for similar reasons.
  You mention charities; many of these are moribund because the welfare state with its legal access to taxpayer’s taxes squeezed them out. How can they compete under such circumstances?

• John

  “In the US and the UK right-wing politicians hope that charities and volunteers will fill the gap left by a diminishing government.”

  No, Ben. On this side of the Atlantic average people don’t want volunteers to fill any gaps. We want to halt the bloated, inefficient government. We want people who can work to work, and we would like the culture of entitlement to cease. No two-year unemployment benefits, for example. If you need to get a lower-paying job and move into a smaller flat, etc., do it, and don’t ask for even more of my money. Don’t ask me to pay for all of your kids, etc. There are many exceptions here of course (disabled, elderly, veterans, etc.), but in far too many cases the system is broken.