David cameron was right after all | thearticle

When David Cameron championed the concept of the Big Society, the phrase resonated. Some mocked it, others regarded it with suspicion as a ruse to cut back on public services. Others felt he

was on to something, even if we might have been hazy about the definition. Volunteering was obviously a big part of it. It could be on a personal level of looking out for our neighbours. It

could be through charities, churches and community groups — sometimes called “civil society”. Some noted that, rather than being new, it was about restoring an old concept that seemed to

have gone out of fashion. To take one example, 1,500 Anglican churches closed between 1969 and 2002. In earlier decades, many of these places would have been thriving centres of community

life. That traditional rival attraction, the public house, also saw a dramatic decline. The narrative of society’s fabric being ripped up is well documented. Crime increased. More families

were broken up by divorce. Terraced streets were demolished, and replaced by tower blocks. Smaller schools merged into giant comprehensives. “Change and decay in all around I see…” Apart

from exalting us to exercise personal responsibility and good citizenship, the Cameron government sought to change the way the state operated — instead of blocking independent social

initiatives, it would actively enable them. The idea was to create an enabling state, that was willing to fund others to provide services if they could do so more effectively. The push to

encourage free schools was an example. Efforts were made to develop a new class of “social entrepreneurs” who could be rewarded for their results, for instance in terms of rehabilitation of

criminals. There was a shift towards giving greater autonomy to the elderly and disabled, allowing them to choose their carers and pay them direct. The National Citizen Service was

established for 16 and 17-year-olds. For all the political embarrassment to Cameron, the increasing number of foodbanks was another instance of the “Big Society” in action. Cameron has gone

and his favourite phrase has slipped out of use. Even those who liked his initiatives would be unlikely to claim they were effective. That brings us to the present emergency. The coronavirus

has made “social distancing”, for the duration, a moral imperative rather than a phenomenon to be decried. But there is a remarkable paradox. This crisis has been combined with a surge of

community spirit. Something is happening out there. Social media, that most contemporary of forces, has proved effective in rekindling this most traditional virtue. Hyper-local sites have

sprung up — via WhatsApp, Facebook and Next Door. In the group I have joined, the mother with a newborn baby has been besieged with offers to supply her with groceries. Toby Young in the

_Spectator_ writes that the chairman of his residents association was concerned that “many of the over-70s won’t know how to use WhatsApp.” “Better, he decided, to put a simpler system in

place. So he emailed all the people in the association and asked anyone willing to help to reply with their name, address and phone number. Once he’d accumulated a list of volunteers, he

then sent out a second email that ­included the volunteers’ contact details and advised anyone who needs assistance to call the person on the list who lives nearest to them. That makes

sense, not least because many of the volunteers will already know their elderly neighbours.” Daniel Hannan in the _Daily Telegraph_ writes of his village in Oxfordshire and the local

shopkeeper. “Raj was already one of the most popular men in the village even before he started free home deliveries for people in isolation. At the same time, the villagers are unfussily

looking out for each other. When I offered to add a neighbour to the paper round which I have just started for people in self-isolation, he replied: ‘Terrifically kind of you, Daniel, but

you’re the sixth person to ask.’ The predominant emotion is not fear of contagion, but mild irritation at the disruption.” I just don’t believe that the pictures of people panic buying tell

us the whole story. Might not some of them be buying extra supplies on behalf of elderly relatives or neighbours? In other words, might they be heroes misrepresented as villains? It must be

conceded that other enthusiastic shoppers are less heroic. But the overwhelming experience is that the crisis has brought out the best of us. Pride, responsibility and compassion have come

to the surface. Values in our national character that some had thought lost forever had simply slipped out of view. Once the epidemic is over the vast majority of us will have survived. What

will be the legacy? My prediction is that once seeing each other is no longer prohibited we will take the opportunity to do more of it. The English may even overcome their instinctive

reserve and begin talking to their neighbours. Four years after his departure from Downing Street, it just might be that David Cameron finds as the country rebuilds itself, his vision

becomes a reality.