The 'Big Society' backlash: Was it regeneration wot lost it?

Over the weekend there were a number of interesting stories relating to the fallout from last week's general election. According to the reports, the knives are already out for Tory leader David Cameron following his failure to achieve an outright majority. And interestingly, one reason cited again and again as being one of the factors behind the Conservative Party's failure to win a majority, was Cameron's flagship Big Society policy - one of the few regeneration-related big ideas to emerge from the three main parties' manifestos.

According to a report in the Observer, many MPs and candidates are "furious" that they had to sell the Big Society, in which citizens volunteer their free time for community action, on the doorstep. "The message was completely woolly. We had nothing to say," one senior MP told the newspaper. "Instead of this complete crap about Big Society we should have had a series of simple messages."

Meanwhile, a piece in the Times says that the Tory manifesto's theme of the Big Society was intended to project a sense of optimism and bold thinking, which Tory candidates and activists struggled to convey to voters. "It was too opaque a concept to sell on the doorsteps," a figure close to the campaign told the newspaper. "What was worse was that it had not even been tested in focus groups before the manifesto launch."

According to an article in the Sunday Telegraph, as activists complained that the idea was difficult to sell to voters, Bill Knapp, the US political consultant hired to help Cameron, asked Tory head of strategy Steve Hilton what research had been done into what voters thought of the Big Society. "The answer was none," the newspaper reported. "After a hurriedly convened focus group detailed a negative reaction, Mr Hilton stormed out."

So should the backlash against the Big Society be of concern to regeneration professionals should the Tories succeed in forming the next government? The idea has received a mixed response from the regeneration sector - some practitioners, no doubt, would not lose any sleep should the Tories choose to quietly drop the plan. But given the lack of emphasis given to regeneration during the election campaign, it would be a shame if the only main party to set out some sort of regeneration vision in its manifesto was to drop the centrepiece of that plan.

Tory manifesto leaves more questions than answers

Regeneration was centre stage at the Conservative manifesto launch last week. But not in a way that would bring any comfort to those in the sector wondering what the future may have in store, writes Allister Hayman.

“Welcome to Battersea, a great British landmark ripe for regeneration, just like our country,” said William Hague, the Tory deputy leader, at the launch of the manifesto. The use of the old derelict power station – subject to so many schemes and visions over the past few decades – as a metaphor for Britain, and by extension, the “regeneration” that the Tory promise to bring the country was clever. But it was just that: all PR and no policy. For, apart from a section in the manifesto that praised Manchester’s urban regeneration (which has largely been directed by Labour both locally and nationally), regeneration was conspicuous only by its absence as a policy area in the manifesto.

We should not be surprised. Having been long promised a Tory regeneration green paper by Tory shadow regeneration minister Stewart Jackson that was endlessly delayed and finally shelved, the sector could not have expected much from the party in the way of clear regeneration policy. Previously, Jackson has said the regeneration paper would set out the Tory position on policy issues such as Tax Increment Financing, the reinstitution of the Single Regeneration Budget, local asset-backed vehicles and a proposed "forensic audit" of the Thames Gateway and housing market renewal areas. It was also expected to further clarify the future of economic development funding if regional development agencies are scrapped.

But now the sector goes into the election not knowing where the Tories stand on these and other issues that concern regeneration practitioners. With the Tories making Britain’s “Broken Society” a key theme in their pitch to voters it is not unreasonable to expect that they would have delivered on their promise to set out some policy positions for those who actually work on the ground in Britain’s so-called broken communities. Yes, they provided details of their 'Big Society' plan to reinvigorate the voluntary and community sector. But while giving residents the power to take control of local parks and swimming pools is commendable, that alone is not going to bring forward the regeneration of Battersea power station.

Such large-scale projects of course require public intervention, which in the case of Battersea will require public money to build an extension to the North Line. If regeneration is anything it is state intervention in market failure, which by its definition requires an active state. Yet the Tory manifesto and the rhetoric of senior members of the shadow cabinet, not least shadow business secretary Ken Clarke, have been increasingly hostile to such notions. Indeed, last week Clarke mocked Labour’s “active industrial policy” championed by business secretary Lord Mandelson and said the Tories would be much more hands off.

This is worrying. Arguably – and many economists do argue this – the Government’s interventions in the economy since the financial crisis were all that stopped the country from plummeting into a truly deep recession, perhaps even depression. Additionally, Lord Mandelson can point to some recent successes in attracting investment to the UK – Nissan’s green car, offshore wind manufacturers - which of course can not entirely be credited to Government policy, but nor can that same policy be entirely discounted.

But plainly, the Tories have hardened their position on the right-side of the economic debate and want a smaller state, and a bigger community sector. It will be a revival of civil society and an unleashing of enterprise that regenerates the UK they argue, not an active state. They want to boost the private sector’s share of the economy across the country - a laudable aim – but expect to do so without the “grants and subsidies” that Clarke said Mandelson has been distributing like “a Bourbon monarch [going] round in his coach throwing out gold coins”.

But many in the sector question whether such a laissez faire approach is really the right one. Yes business would benefit from cutting red tape – that is a given – but the economy remains weak and is in need of serious recalibration. As a recent report by the think-tank the Work Foundation made clear, the industries of the future – high tech manufacturing, green technologies, the creative industries – as well as the research and development and innovation that lead to as yet undiscovered opportunities, rarely emerge out of thin air.

Rather, they are conjured through partnerships between the public and private sector, as evidenced, for example, in Germany. The worry is that, in the Tories' championing of the third sector and their evident eagerness to hack back the state, the subtleties of these kinds of relations between public and private sectors may be trampled – and with them the green shoots of recovery. If Battersea is to be regenerated – and by extension the UK – the Tories would do well to recognise that just as they might like now to cut tax but can’t, so too should they realise that a little bit of action from the state to help recalibrate the UK economy would not be the end of the world. Indeed, it could be the start of a new one.

Taking stock

The Conservatives have published their housing green paper to mixed reaction. Some points make good sense and have been welcomed by practitioners – enabling housing associations to use public funds to bring empty homes back into use, for example.
In his introduction to the paper, David Cameron highlights Thatcher’s infamous Right-to-Buy policy which he praises for giving millions of families the opportunity to build up their own assets. But many practitioners believe the policy is responsible for underpinning today’s housing crisis by vastly reducing the pool of social homes available. Even now, thirty years after the policy was introduced, the effects are still being felt; the stock of affordable homes fell by 300,000 between 1999 and 2007 leading the National Housing Federation to call last year for a temporary ban on Right-to-Buy.

If the Tories really want to provide everyone with a high quality home of their own then that means getting the bulldozers out and building new homes. The green paper acknowledges that more homes must be built but this goal seems at odds with the party’s push for a bottom-up approach to planning. The Tories want communities to take the lead on housebuilding - under a Tory government residents in villages and towns would be given new powers to approve local housing developments - but housebuilders are rightly questioning whether this approach will actually lead to an increase in the number of homes built given the power it will confer on that British stalwart, the Nimby.

The national focus over falling property prices distorts the fact that Britain still faces a housing shortage. Developers may be downing tools and luxury flats lie empty as the credit crunch bites but overcrowding, homelessness and housing waiting lists are all on the increase. Handing the baton to local communities may please the Telegraph reader but it is unlikely to make much progress in resolving these problems.