Politics

Often misunderstood and unfairly demonised by its critics, the Big Society works as a bold conservative political idea. It was first introduced by former Prime Minister David Cameron in his Hugo Young lecture of 2009 in the run-up to the 2010 general elections. Though it was first presented to me during my time in secondary school, it has undoubtedly shaped my perception of politics and society ever since. The main ambitions of this policy were not unusual as such: decentralisation, innovation, prosperity and community-building. The means, however, were different and promising. The idea revolved around a simple mechanism, specifically investing in and encouraging social entrepreneurs, start-ups and community activists to unleash a mighty wave of social energy which would in turn benefit everyone – regardless of race, class or gender. Yet the narratives on Mr Cameron’s premiership instead shifted towards arguments over austerity and Brexit, as the sole legacy of a government which believed in individual and collective empowerment. Likewise, the rise of populist rhetoric has shifted public opinion towards issues like immigration, thus ignoring the possible prospects and achievements of the Big Society.

Resources exist in society, some created by government, but most are produced by the people, and often overlooked and underestimated. The purpose of the Big Society was to encourage civil society to take action, sometimes in lieu of public services but most often in addition to them. In the long-term, that would mean combining institutions such as charities, trusts and even private companies in order to offer opportunities at a local level, therefore reducing dependence on government. In the short and medium terms, the Government would support those who need it the most, particularly in areas such as education, health and security. In other words, that would mean integrating a pro-market government with a widespread model of social solidarity based on hierarchy and voluntarism. The Big Society marked an impressive attempt to reframe, but not withdraw, the role of government and to unleash entrepreneurial spirit – thus stimulating economic and social growth whilst reducing inequalities. 

The Covid-19 crisis has offered us an incredible insight into the significance of the role of civil society in building shared purposes and inspirations. The British people did not become ‘social’ overnight but the pandemic has shown us that coming together for the common good is neither a political utopia nor a prelude to small government. Restaurants that have become incapable of serving customers have helped feed front-line workers. Families have secured funding and groceries to support food banks and other charities. Not forgetting, of course, the incredible solidarity impetus driven by Captain Sir Tom Moore and which has been made possible by the help of supporters up and down the country. The Big Society focuses on human beings as bundles of capability instead of economic atoms. The Covid-19 crisis has proved that more than ever, putting human nature at the core of society can help overcome all sorts of political challenges, from cutting crime to reducing unemployment. 

There is a very specific reason why the Big Society must come back to the core of governmental incentives: the Conservative Party has always proved its capacity to adapt to its epoch. 21st century Britain requires that the Conservatives remain the party of social reform. Meritocracy, personal liberalism and social pluralism all characterise the current government. One example of that is the capacity of the party to embrace the amazing diversity that builds up the United Kingdom. Rishi Sunak, son of Punjabi Hindu immigrants, galvanises our economy. Priti Patel, daughter of Indian immigrants, protects our streets. This capacity to offer everyone a chance and to support those who need it the most lies at the core of the Big Society ideals. The public sector has already failed to prevent the poorest parts of the country from becoming so, and there are many examples of the Big Society having been effective in poor areas. In Balsall Heath, Birmingham – which used to be one of the country’s most precarious areas – inspiring social organisations such as the Balsall Heath Forum have continuously acted towards socio-economic progress, working alongside a government providing support but also freedom and autonomy to the people who could make the greatest difference. Likewise, the Big Society Awards have for years encouraged and celebrated groups and organisations making things better for their communities and their people. 

Now is the time to provide a new social contract between the state and civil society. It would be naïve to believe that this transformation will happen overnight, hence why the Government must remain strong enough to plant the seeds of this project. To be an enabler instead of a provider per se. Such a massive shift in the culture of society would put power and responsibility in the hands of local people and social entrepreneurs who can really change communities. Prime Minister Johnson and Mr Sunak have throughout the pandemic been highlighting in various occasions what the British people can achieve together at a local level, whether when supporting vulnerable and elderly people in doing their groceries or in setting up telephone befriending services in Eastbourne. The Prime Minister and his Government shall now learn from the positive outcomes of the Covid-19 crisis and unlock Britain, by enabling the formation of a strong and prosperous community spirit. Build back better, in a Big Society.

Taylor is currently undertaking work experience at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Chmee2]

Until 2010, Westminster had been dominated by both Labour and the Conservatives for decades, while minor parties had very little influence. Most people would strongly argue that they are the only two parties in Westminster who have a realistic chance of winning power. However, the last decade in UK politics has shown us unprecedented times such as the turmoil over Brexit, the confusion and chaos that comes with coalitions and the increase in nationalism around the union. All of these complications share one thing in common, they have been great for minor parties. 

Minor parties have and can affect the policies of both the Labour party and Conservative party. As evidenced by the predicament of Brexit. Support for a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU was increasingly becoming popular as illustrated in the success UKIP was set to achieve, where polls had predicted they would gain around 13% of the vote in the upcoming 2015 general election. This was clear evidence to David Cameron and the Conservatives that if they wanted to win back some of these voters in future elections, they must offer a referendum. As a result, in the 2015 conservative manifesto, Cameron offered a ‘in or out referendum by the end of 2017’. 

Since 2010, we have seen a coalition and a confidence and supply agreement. When coalitions and informal agreements such as confidence and supply occur, the minor party has proven pivotal in keeping the government functional and been able to implement parts of their manifesto. During the Conservative – Lib Dem coalition, we saw the government cut taxes for millions of people  as well as increasing the state pension fund, something that some people argue, including Nick Clegg, would not have happened if the Conservatives won a majority.  

After the 2017 general election, when Theresa May failed to achieve an outright majority for the conservatives, the confidence and supply agreement she made with the DUP allowed her to govern effectively and fight off any challenges to her leadership. For example, in January 2019, Jeremy Corbyn tabled a vote of no confidence in May’s leadership. One she would not have been able to win without her agreement with the DUP. 

With nationalism on the rise in Scotland, smaller parties have a much better chance at winning some form of power and fulfilling their agendas further. In 2015, the SNP increased their seats in Westminster by 50, limiting the power of the Conservative and Labour party further by reducing their influence in Parliament. In addition, the SNP are set to win a record breaking majority in the upcoming Scottish parliament elections, something that is very difficult to do given the proportional electoral system, strengthening their proposal of independence further.

On the contrary, some would argue that even though minor parties have played a more significant role in the last decade, the extent of their power and influence is limited due to the national electoral system. First past the post means that the candidate with the most amount of votes, wins the seat. Therefore, if there are multiple candidates in a constituency, and the candidate with the most votes received 40%, they would win the seat. Even though a majority of the total votes cast did not go to that candidate. A case can be made that the SNP surge we saw in the 2015 general election, does not necessarily mean that the call for Scottish independence has increased amongst the Scottish electorate, as some would argue that an even larger amount of voters, did not vote SNP.

In addition, a second example of how FPTP limits the success of minor parties can be evidenced by looking at UKIP’s performance in the 2015 general election. As the polls suggested, UKIP did win close to 13% of the total votes cast, a significant share. However, this resulted in UKIP winning only one seat. FPTP limits the extent to how significant minor parties really can be. 

As a result of the cases above, it is clear that minor parties do play a significant role in UK politics. As evidenced by the influence UKIP had over determining the Conservative party policy towards the EU and ultimately, some would argue, causing Brexit. Also, by looking at how minority governments and partnerships such as coalitions and confidence and supply agreements, lead to further influence from minor parties towards government policy and in keeping the government functionable. The success of nationalist movements in parts of the Union such as Scotland also led to minor parties gaining more power in Westminster. All of these cases allow for minor parties to play a more significant role in our political system. However, an argument can be made that minor parties and their power and influence are limited due to factors like the electoral system.

Despite FPTP, minor parties have played a more significant role in the last decade. However, if minor parties want to play a more significant role in the future, a more proportional system is needed. 

Taylor is currently undertaking work experience at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Chmee2]

The Prime Minister is in a bind over growing Scottish pressure for another referendum on independence from the UK.  Many of Boris Johnson’s actions, including visiting Scotland, seem to increase support for independence.  The Scottish National Party regard him as the gift that keeps on giving, and they have the wind in their sails.

Mr Johnson has said he is not prepared to give Holyrood the power to hold a referendum, which creates another grievance for the nationalists to exploit. 

To escape this trap, Johnson needs to reverse the Brexit playbook model of vote first, clarify later.  This served him well previously and the Scottish nationalists are now enthusiastically following it. 

The winners in the Brexit referendum and 2019 Conservative election campaigns fought on the basis of a broad concept, avoiding discussion of details.  The Scottish nationalists are currently able to use a similar strategy based on emotional appeal for an independence referendum while minimising debate on specific policies.  Leaving all details to be sorted out afterwards minimises democratic input, as the nature of the final settlement owes more to the government of the day and its competence than to the views of the electorate.

In the Brexit referendum and the UK’s 2019 ‘Brexit election’ this approach proved impossible to counter.  It follows that to neutralise the nationalists, a diametrically opposite policy is needed.

Downing Street may have the makings of a plan.  It has already announced that there will be no officially sanctioned referendum during the current parliament.  While this may look like a measure certain to inflame the nationalists, it lays the ground.

If the SNP achieve a Holyrood landslide next May, granting a Section 30 order transferring power to hold a referendum would become politically harder to resist.  An effective and suitably dramatic response would be for Boris Johnson immediately to offer to start negotiations with the Scottish government to produce a draft withdrawal agreement, to be put to the Scottish people in an official referendum once finalised.

The draft agreement should obviously cover all aspects of Scotland’s exit from the United Kingdom and the future relationship between the two countries.  It might include constitutional issues and the role of the monarchy, trade and economic matters and which currency Scotland would use, citizenship and common travel area arrangements (perhaps like those the UK has with Ireland), defence (including basing arrangements for the UK’s nuclear armed submarines), and more.  

The process of negotiation would require the nationalists to address political realities and awkward questions such as how to deal with the current collapse in oil and gas revenues and the future loss of fiscal transfers from the UK exchequer worth around £11bn per year.

Timing is important.  Under the Good Friday agreement, an Irish referendum on re-unification may be held every seven years.  If this precedent were applied to Scotland, another independence referendum could be due in 2021.  If negotiations on a Scottish withdrawal agreement were under way, that would inevitably push the issue beyond next year and perhaps even beyond the end of this parliament.  The outcome of a referendum that might look like a foregone conclusion now could be very different if held some time after the next UK general election due in 2024.

Such a draft agreement would provide a solid basis for Scots to vote on their nation’s destiny through an officially recognised “indyref 2”.  The referendum then might be hailed as a global exemplar of enlightened, democratic decision making, with the Scottish people making an informed choice about their future.

Some aspects of separation and the future relationship with the UK would by their nature be contingent on actions by an independent Scotland.  Most obviously, if Scotland were to join the EU then the economic significance of the UK border would change radically.  At present around 60 per cent of Scotland’s exports go to the rest of the UK, whereas a hard border north of Hadrian’s Wall with possible customs and phytosanitary checks would adversely affect all the economies of the British Isles.  No government can fetter its successors, and a new Scottish government would have to make its own decisions within the context of domestic politics and whatever constraints the withdrawal agreement with the UK entailed.

The contrast between the Brexit model of enduring uncertainty until the end of negotiations and this approach is pointed.  Boris Johnson has shrugged off far more serious sources of potential embarrassment with his customary bluff and brio.  That seems preferable to the risk he currently runs of going down in history as the prime minister who divided the UK and lost Scotland.

Andrew is a member of Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Number 10]

Despite much of the country tucking into Rishi Sunak’s Eat Out to Help Out scheme, Boris Johnson is insisting that it is engaging in a ‘war on obesity’. So ambitious – or naïve – is this government that they aim to have an effect soon enough as to combat the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. It is tempting to view this as a bold new initiative, but this ignores a simple fact: obesity has been notionally tackled by all governments since Blair, none of which has succeeded in stalling the growth of obesity.

Policies planned by the government in many ways merely represent an extension of Cameron-era interventions based on nudge theory, such as the sugar tax. The new government strategy includes bans on 2-for-1 deals and advertisements before the watershed for junk food, as well as moving unhealthy ‘treats’ away from the till, prescribing diets, and for calories to be displayed on menus. Ultimately, it is unclear the benefits these polices have brought thus far and will bring in the future, especially as junk food will remain ubiquitous, and lives are still becoming ever-more sedentary.

On the ground, youth participation in sports is declining, with minutes spent in PE declining by 20% at Key Stage 3 and 38% at Key Stage 4 between 2013 and 2018. Worryingly, there is a gulf in sports participation between less and more affluent groups, and along lines of ethnicity that closely follows gaps in youth obesity rates. The gap only widens when you look beyond the bare minimum of one hour’s exercise per week, with the demographic differences between those who play three or more hours even starker. With organised sports becoming increasingly important as a source of activity as children play outdoors less and stare at screens more, this is a concerning trend.

So how could a government undertake a proactive approach to youth obesity? Arguably it could look a bit like social prescribing, such as a new mental health initiative being rolled out across the country as an alternative to medicalised solutions. Social prescribers aim to provide information and community-oriented solutions to problems caused by anxiety, loneliness, etc. This could be translated into raising awareness of and interconnectivity between schools and local sports clubs. Currently, youth sports access within the UK is very divided along the lines of class and ethnicity. Not only are disadvantaged groups less likely to play sport but also have less access to certain sports. 

A policy that would seek to redress this imbalance could involve bringing club coaches into PE sessions, showcasing the sports while advertising them to interested pupils. Built into this new intra-community fabric would also be connections between schools and clubs, such that potential players and parents would have access to information on nearby facilities and sports clubs, alongside education and awareness about their benefits. Clubs are extant institutions that can provide egalitarian access to sports facilities that many comprehensives can’t. They are a ready-made alternative that is systematically under-utilised.

This is inspired by the experience of my cricket club which has an outreach programme in local schools, the largest such initiative in the UK. Not only has this led to it having one of the biggest youth sections in the county league, but has also diversified its membership, both socio-economically and ethnically, particularly with children of non-Commonwealth immigrants whose parents were not traditional fans of cricket. This illustrates that active lifestyles are disincentivised by information failures: there are sports out there for every individual, but such doors appear closed, or – even worse – children do not know they exist. 

Beyond the measures that seek to improve participation by simple information and awareness, socio-economic disadvantages also need to be addressed via direct financial support. If we are serious about tackling obesity, then it also requires us to tackle the obvious financial barriers to participation. Indeed, as the prior policies demand schools recognise their shortcomings and instead magnify the benefits of extra-curricular organisations, it follows that these non-public organisations ought to be more inclusive. 

A Sports Participation Voucher that would provide membership for a young person to a club for the duration of a season conditional on one of two requirements is one way to address this. Similarly, to Free School Meals, those whose family incomes fall below a certain point should be entitled to the voucher. In addition, those in urgent need of exercise, such that their obesity is putting their long-term health at risk, should also be entitled. This way those who are most in-need of extra activity yet most likely to not receive will not face the usual barriers.

If the Government is serious about tackling obesity, it must not just disincentivise unhealthy actions, but incentivise healthy lifestyles. What better way for that therefore, than for the government to stop nannying shopping aisles and instead getting more children playing, competing, and, winning.

Callum is currently undertaking work experience at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: RoboMichalec]