Hundreds of millions of pounds of unclaimed assets from dormant accounts will be channelled into a "big society bank" to fund grassroots social entrepreneurs to deliver public services under a Tory government, David Cameron announced today. Outlining "incredibly ambitious" plans to reduce the role of the "big state", the Tory leader declared that the bank would help charity and voluntary groups that are "locked out" of the current system. The bank was one of a series of proposals revealed by the Tories todayas the party outlined its "big society" mission to tackle social ills.
"Oh my God, i've just touched one!"
A Conservative government would:
• Create an army of 5,000 full-time professional community organisers – modelled on the work of Barack Obama in Chicago in the 1980s – who would encourage the creation of community groups involving every adult in Britain.
• Target neighbourhood grants towards poorest areas to encourage social entrepreneurs and charities in deprived areas.
• Transform the civil service into a "civic service" by making community service a key part of staff appraisals.
"This idea, the big society, is both incredibly ambitious, but also refreshingly modest. Ambitious because its aims are sweeping – building a fairer, richer, safer Britain, where opportunity is more equal and poverty is abolished. But modest too – because it's not about some magic new plan dreamed up in Whitehall and imposed from on high. It's about enabling and encouraging people to come together to solve their problems and make life better," said Cameron.
But there are at least two big problems with Mr Cameron's big idea. First, his enthusiasm for a strong society is not actually shared by his party's more ideologically Thatcherite members, large numbers of whom still see cutting the state as a virtue in itself and are not overly fussed about the social consequences. These free marketeers are likely to see the Big Society's community initiatives as a waste of time and money. Second, and much more important, it is hard to see how the Big Society approach cannot benefit the rich more than the poor. Empowering communities with thick wallets and sharp elbows is much easier than empowering those who have neither.
