The Big Society- as I see it

Hello there.  Long time no post.  Hopefully this won't continue.  Anyway, for now, here's something.

The 'Big Society' is much in the news again of late.  Reaction to it still ranges from 'what?' to 'isn't that what I do anyway?' to 'cutting services by stealth.'  Possibly the failure to come up with an easily understandable soundbite is one of the biggest problems facing the 'Big Society.' 

But the welcome from churches- identified as major players in the 'Big Society' vision- has often been cautious, and perhaps should be more cautious still.  While the aim (getting people to engage more with their community and to take responsibility for what goes on there) seems to fit well with much of what churches already do and should be doing more of, as time as passed since Cameron started talking about the 'Big Society' suspicions of what might be lurking behind it have grown.  While I do think that the prime minister is sincere in what he says about fostering community and volunteer-run local services being better for people than big central government; there is no doubt that this is also very convenient for his government in the midst of its' programme of cuts.

Perhaps it's ironic that this government that says it dislikes the idea of big government telling people what's good for them is in fact doing just that.  The problem I have- and that I think the church is facing- is that we already do voluntary work.  We know what the pitfalls are- struggles to find volunteers, unreliability, people moving away and difficulties finding people with the right skills to fill the posts, struggles to fit in enough family and leisure time as well as volunteering and actual work, struggles to find appropriate venues and, of course, finding enough money.  Volunteer run services are great, I don't dispute that.  But can you really rely on them to be there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year?  I'm not sure you can- or that you should.

I think my biggest problem with the 'Big Society' is not just that it's easy to use it to cover up damaging cuts in areas that the vast majority of people agree (when they bother to think about it) should actually be the business of central or local government- care for the elderly and disabled, for the homeless, for those escaping abusive relationships or with nowhere to go coming out of care, prison or hospital.  I think it bothers me most that while in the nice, peaceful and fairly well-off (and mainly Tory) shires where people have enough money to contribute and families aren't working all hours of the day to make ends meet, it might just work, with some help. (Obviously these are the places that Cameron etc know-and possibly care- most about).

But in places far from London, or in council estates where those that work often work unsocial or irregular hours, and where those that don't are too depressed and discouraged to bother with abstract nouns like 'community', I think it will be a whole lot harder to get off the ground.  Unfortunately, those are exactly the places that need it most.