Why 'Big Society' doesn't sound so great
David Cameron used the term "Big Society" incessantly this morning, but I don't think it works as a slogan.
The problem is that one always has to think for a second or two about what it means.
But good slogans should be immediately recognisable and understandable.
To many voters, Big Society may mean big government, and an all-intervening state, along the lines of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" in America in the 1960s.
But Mr Cameron has made it clear that the kind of big spending and lots of new legislation of the Johnson presidency is exactly what he does not envisage.
Indeed you could argue that the Big Society is another way of saying "socialism".
The real difficulty is the word "big". It often has negative connotations - eg "does my bum look big in this?" Or "Big Brother". Or "He's too big for his boots".
"Great" is a much more positive word than "big", but the trouble is they can't use Great Society because LBJ got there first.
The problem was illustrated twice this morning when Cameron said voters didn't want government that is big. So he ended up decrying half of his own slogan.
I know perfectly well what he is TRYING to do and trying to say, but the language just doesn't work. It's all too confusing.
I don't know the answer, but "big society" isn't it. And in any case it's too late to ditch it now.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 19th Apr 2010, cping500 wrote:Arguing about the words is really by the way. My question is is the policy actually compatible with Francis Maude's final recension of the Tory Manifesto. I detect subtle differences about when 'the neighbourhood organisations'(which we will be pressured to join by Camaroon (Scottish pronunciation.. matches Broon) revolutionary cadres) will be able to take over libraries etc. and of course who will pay for them.(pages 37-39) I thought the libraries anyway were to be run by coops. The same seems to be true of parents and schools. The major thrust of the school takeover will be by 'educational providers' like Chris Woodhead's organisation under the academy arrangements. Parents only get a look in for failing schools. Of course educational providers would do well to recruit some tame parents to give them some creditability
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 19th Apr 2010, DebtJuggler wrote:CAPITALISM HAS FAILED!
All of the three 'main' parties are still espousing the capitalistic model of liberal democratic, free-market fundamentalism that has brought about this spectacular greed fuelled economic failure (and the bankers are still allowed to award themselves £billions in bonuses).
If you vote for any of the three 'main' parties, you are in fact, voting for status quo and more of the same i.e. free-market anarchy.
We need something far more radical and far more decisive....we need national socialism!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 19th Apr 2010, Ben G wrote:Agreed, terrible slogan, and brought out too late to sink in. What Cameron really means is more local democracy. So why doesn't he just say that.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 19th Apr 2010, DebtJuggler wrote:3. At 5:45pm on 19 Apr 2010, Ben G wrote:
Democracy....shamocracy!....what country have you been living in for the past 44 years.
You are deluded or sham free-market fundamentalist. Your religion is dead!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)