So much for the Big Society

‘Little by little, and like a virus, the Big Society idea has lodged itself insidiously in my mind; so that now, everywhere I go, I start to see small things that actually could be done closer to the ground, by and for the people who know about them and need them’.

So wrote Matthew Parris in the Spectator last August, a passage approvingly quoted by Jesse Norman, the Big Society philosopher-in-chief in his book of the same name.

Parris’s summary tells us that the concept has gained a grip – and not only on the Right. Some Liberal Democrats are also talking about it as if it were a Liberal agenda. And Labour is attacking it as a smokescreen for cuts.

At first sight, as described by Parris, it is indeed a Liberal philosophy: close enough to devolution and community politics as to be part of our daily business.

But is there any more to it? Norman’s book is a discursive romp through the limitations of  economics (he condemns the fact that reality is seen ‘through the spectacles of formal economic models’), laced with ferocious attacks on Labour’s legacy, as well as some alarming non-sequiturs:

‘It may seem fanciful to connect such things as the recent rise in drug abuse and knife crime with the social acceptance of a standard economic worldview,’ Norman declares. Yes: it is fanciful, but thank you for admitting it.

He also critiques Layard’s ‘Happiness’ and, while at first seeming to be a Thatcherite apologist (she ‘reduced the pervasiveness of the state’) he ends by condemning her use of North Sea Oil revenues to prop up Government revenue spending.

Plato, meanwhile, is unsound compared with Aristotle, who recognised man as a social animal (thus neatly retiring Thatcher’s claim that there is no such thing as society).

The core is what Norman terms ‘I-C-E’: Institutions, Competition, Entrepreneurship.

The Big Society needs independent institutions, encompassing rules, customs or traditions as well as concrete ideas like ‘fish markets and car boot sales’.

Competition has its normal meaning, although he recognises the need for market regulation in some cases (eg mortgages where people can mistake what is in their best interest).

The definition of entrepreneurship is so wide that it might ‘seem meaningless’. It includes not only an inventor or an importer but also the ‘house-husband (nice touch) who stretches a limited budget’. Linked to this is praise of mutualism and co-operatives.

So what is the Big Society? There are elements of volunteering, mutualism, localism and letting people get on with it.

My street runs a street party every year and sings carols on Christmas Eve. The necessary arrangements just happen - without council or government intervention.

But the comfortable conventions of self-confident middle class households cannot be seen as a template for what may be needed in run down estates.

The good news is that the Big Society is not Thatcherism.

The bad news is that it is probably not very much at all.

Questions over MP's expense claims - already

Commenting on recent revelations that Hereford’s MP Jesse Norman submitted a claim for over £1500 in office furniture which was rejected by IPSA, local Liberal Democrat party chair Chris White said: 

“I find it astonishing that such a newly elected MP is already getting into potential hot water over his expenses.  He must answer to his constituents as to why he put in a claim for items not permitted under the new rules.”

More gloom over polytunnels

The Appeal Court ruling over polytunnels this week suggests that they will be come more common in Herefordshire. Essentially farmers will find it easier to get planning permission where they are to be erected on land already in agricultural use - although planning permission will still be needed.

It seems a minor change but the visual effect - and the damage to landscapes - can be immense. The Wye Valley is not virgin land. Much is aleady in use for agricultural purposes and it is likely that there will be a significant increase in the effective industrialisation of the countryside.

The cost to the county is likely to be immense. Intensive farming of this type does not provide many local jobs. But tourism, which has real growth potential, will suffer a setback. The image of Herefordshire may well turn to plastic in the eyes of those who do not know the county well.

Coalition 2 Labour 0

The departure of Alan Johnson in sad personal circumstances has done little to help the credibility of the official opposition.

Ed Miliband's credibility was already strained after his decision to give the now disgraced Phil Woolas a shadow ministerial position and by his appointment of Johnson as Shadow Chancellor, a man who was clearly struggling to master his brief however able he was in other ways.

The lack of talent means that Balls was in some ways the obvious replacement. Even if he is on the thug wing of the Labour Party and can thus shake the Coalition tree a bit harder, he brings baggage.

He is a 'deficit denier', preferring the cosy route of printing money over closing the gap through fiscal stringency. This is the road first of all to dramatically higher interest rates (not least to the government itself) and ultimately of a serious dose of inflation.

Worse still, though, he can be credited with the lax banking deregulation system that brought this country to its knees.

Would anyone want this man in charge of our economy again? I think not.

6% rail fare rise: come off it!

News that rail fares will rise by a further 6% - considerably above inflation - will only anger those who have to use the county's railways.

Unreliability and overcrowding are routine experiences for rail users and there is little sign that the fare increase will lead to any improvement.

It does not help that Arrive describe the increase as 'small' - a clear case of insult to injury.

Two tribes

The boss of Barclays appeared before MPs yesterday. The Financial Times described it as a dialogue of the deaf and contrasted the atttitude of the City of London with that of the City of Westminster.

This misses the point. The City of London is responsible in theory to shareholders, in practice to the Boards of Directors which agree and indeed receive the billion pound bonuses which so offend the public. The people in Westminster, at the end of the day, represent us. MPs are often criticised, sometimes rightly, for being out of touch. But on this one MPs of all parties are absolutely on the nail.

Diamond was not repentent. He talked offensively about banks being allowed to get on with creating jobs - impervious to the reflection that it is banks which have done so much to destroy jobs.

In fact his performance overall was surprisingly poor from someone so well rewarded: a council chief could have performed much better, as could many others in the public and private sector.

We know that the Coalition Government is wrestling with this problem. The banking levy already imposed is welcome. But if the banks, including the ones I own and you own, do pay bonuses of £7 billion the public will not wear it and will expect their Government to exact retribution.

Spare the children

Does it matter if this country locks up a few children? Especially when it is in the right?

Well, yes, it does. Nick Clegg has managed to persuade his Coalition partners that the children of asylum seekers should not be under lock and key like prisoners, a position vindicated in yesterday's judgement:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-12164411.

But there are many others who are locked up for committing crimes.

Why not, you may ask? It's simple: does a two year old know the difference between right and wrong? Clearly not.

Does a five year old? Probably not.

A ten year old? Oh definitely. But perhaps not the difference between misbehaving and commiting a crime.

It is difficult to know when to stop but in effect we assume that a ten year old can be tried for crimes.
I would argue that we cannot normally be sure about the grasp a ten or even a thirteen year old can have as to the gravity of a particular act or omission and that as a result a completely different set of remedies, quite distinct from the criminal law, is appropriate for those under the age of fourteen. This would bring us into line with most of the rest of the world, which has ages of criminal responsibility of fourteen on average - often higher.

This does not mean that deplorable acts of violence or killing are ignored. Far from it. But it means that the state attempts to repair the damage that the parents or society have inflicted rather than transferring the offenders to a University of crime where they can never get a second chance.

Controversial? Not really: we all agree that children under the age of sixteen cannot know whether a sexual act is appropriate and thus prohibit by law intercourse below that age. Why on earth are all other acts treated as if they were committed by a reasoning mature adult?