In both cases, you have the Tory Prime Minister trying to define what British society should be. In Maggie's case, it was to define it in terms of individualism. In Cameron's case, it's to define it in terms of some homogeneous conformity to his ideals of what Britain should be. Maggie failed because society is too complex (and, for want of a better word, too big) to define in simple, one dimensional terms. Cameron's ideas will ultimately fail because society is too dynamic and diverse (and big) to fit into his rather simplistic ideals.
An interesting comment from Alistair Campbell on his blog. This may be heresay (and he's hardly a neutral commentator), but the story he reports is telling:
If I could believe that the concept of the big society was driven by a positive social ideology, I'd be for it. In that frame, it's basically saying we need to work together to improve the local communities where we live. I can't see any reasonable person objecting to that. However, in practice, it appears to come from a far more negative economic ideology of, "we need to save money; we've decided to cut as hard and as far as we can (because we, ideologically, believe Government should be small). So we're not going to help you any more, so do it yourself or your screwed."I have much enjoyed the retelling of a ministerial meeting recently at which the LIB DEM said he (or might it have been she?) said he/she was worried that the policy under discussion did not have a Big Society element. The (senior) TORY in the team piped up … "oh do grow up. That's code for cuts."
Bookmarks