David Cameron's 'Big Speech' on 'Big Society' last week in Liverpool has attempted to set out more of the map for the Big Society territory.  As a consequence we now know a little more about the Big Society Bank, and err, .....

'Big Society' remains a set of worthy ideals, and the evidence that the rhetoric has substance remains minimal.  The question could rapidly become 'Is Big Society attractive but ephemeral?'.  As a consequence it is open to interpretation by a wide variety of soothsayers, political interests and commentators (including us I suppose).  We notice that in this process the dialogue about Big Society has become, at least in the media's eyes, a dialogue about volunteering, and especially about volunteering replacing proper professional delivery of public services as a consequence of expenditure cuts.  This is an unimaginative and narrow interpretation of Big Society, which we think has far more potential than that. 

And so it seems does the Government.  After a post-election pause David Cameron is not the only member of the Government putting forward 'Big Solutions'; witness Theresa May and elected Commissioners for the Police Service, and some very low profile proposals from Andrew Lansley on the Local Authority role in Health.

Eric Pickles' frank admission that the two agendas of Big Society and Public Expenditure cuts are linked, saying for boss David Cameron what probably remains true but unsayable, was an interesting move.  We think that Mr Pickles is right to make the link explicit, after all everyone else thinks it. If there is one thing that destroys trust in such relationships it is a sense that the protagonists and 'Experts' (whether from the Government, 'the Authority' or other holder of power), are not being open and honest. 

And in a very real sense Big Society can and should be about what works in practice; to fix this thing too early would be a mistake. We believe that what Big Society is, what it does and what works should be established as much by 'us' as by 'them', because in that sense at least, it is right to be terrified by the thought of Big Society as Government led.  A truly engaged public, involved in decision-making at all levels, trusting because of a sense of real relationship, or the possibility of having influence if that is required, is always likely to be distrustful of 'Big Government' generating solutions that require 'us' to take on a greater share of the responsibility for delivery of services. Why should we expect the drive for a new relationship, a new social and psychological contract between people and their public services, one that requires a new trust, new duties, new actions, to come from Government AND to be successful, especially when it does so in the face of the current expenditure crisis in the public sector?

In part this is a problem exemplified by the classic response to a request for directions, 'well I wouldn't start from here'.  Or in this case, 'I wouldn't ask a (any) Government to establish a Big Society'.

And the policy appears to lack coherence, a symptom perhaps of the extent to which it is new, not embedded in a tradition of thought in the Tory-led Government, is therefore ill-thought-through, and for some, a badge of convenience.  For example, there is a consistent mistaking of democratically-led scrutiny and control for true involvement.  So, the policy of Elected Commissioners of Police potentially prejudices, dangerously so say some commentators, important mainstays of police independence from the political process, and distracts attention from an equally interesting but much less visible set of proposals about re-engaging local people with their police service.  And there is a similar pattern in the proposed relationship between new health systems and Local Authorities.

So, whether you find Big Society attractive or not may depend on our collective abilities to withstand the siren calls and focus on the substance that lies somewhat hidden within.

The new Government is certainly prepared to make some bold statements, some would say 'brave' in the Sir Humphrey sense.  And none of those statements would seem much bigger than Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne's promise last week to,

"start a period of external engagement between the Government and all parts of society ....., in order to obtain the best ideas from those most involved in and affected by public services".

There is no bigger issue in British political and economic life just now, and here is the Government promising, not just to consult, but to engage.  We like that.

I'm told scepticism, even cynicism, is a very British trait.  Perhaps so, but if you have a strength, play to it...!  So, the sceptics amongst us (and we are often they) will say, show us the hard substance of this proposal, and in truth just at the moment it's hard to see real substance: The accompanying 'Spending Review Framework' sets out the scale of the problem, a timetable for addressing it and, under the heading 'We're all in this together', delivers a side of A4 on the consultative process that says....err, not a lot.  We are promised 'talented individuals' to provide expert advice, and a 'series of events' over the summer to 'discuss and debate' among 'a range of people'.  "Invitees will include members of think tanks and interested groups, academics, representatives of local government, business and trade unions, and public sector experts and watchdogs such as the Audit Commission." (we'll let you know if we're invited, if you tell us the same!) Oh, and a series of events in undefined sectors.  And its relationship to real decision-making? The relationship between this process and the supposed venue for decision-making (the so-called Star Chamber of senior Ministers) is also left unclear.

In other words this is not yet a well defined process, or at least not yet in public.  Can you smell a conspiracy yet?  But here's the rub.  If this is a genuinely open and dynamic process, a true reaction to a new form of Government in troubled times, actually I wouldn't want too much certainty just yet. 

We know that true engagement is dynamic, complex, messy, and even at times 'chaotic' in the sense that a lot of different things, some diametrically opposed to each other, will happen at once.  Embracing that approach, even with the apparent benefit of having observed Canadian experience, won't make those factors go away, nor should it.

So, you quite literally pay your money (tax, not bribes, I hope) and make your choice: Do you suspend your cynicism about our political system and our politicians, allow the possibility that something different is happening, that it may have real effect, or that it is at least a real attempt at such change, or do you see these words as mere idealism that will be worn down by the tide of real events and grubby politics, or, worse, see them as window dressing, as designed to sugar the pill.  In short, do you choose scepticism or hope?