The fourth sector & class politics

Matthew Parris has, inadvertently, drawn attention to a curiosity about David Cameron’s “big idea.”  This, he says, is that:

Social obligation can be best expressed not by paying taxes to a huge, impersonal state bureaucracy that “delivers” provision from on high, but through Burke’s “small platoons”.
Mr Cameron means family, extended family, community, Church, local government, voluntary effort, the work of charities, and the decentralisation of power and effort to collectives personal enough for people to take ownership of their efforts.
He cites (a new buzz-phrase) “social enterprise” or the “fourth sector”, where by leadership and maybe subsidy government can “nudge” groups and organisations to take upon their own shoulders the task of (say) looking after the needy, starting up schools, or improving their surroundings.

There is a lack of historical perspective here. Once upon a time, there was a very powerful “fourth sector” - groups of people who formed small (and large) platoons which took responsibility for looking after the needy, outside of - and sometimes in conflict with - the state.
I refer, of course, to trades unions.
Which raises the question. Why is it that the defining feature of 1980s Toryism was an assault upon the “fourth sector“, and yet the defining feature of Cameronism is the promotion of it, in a different sense?
Is there any consistency here?
Maybe. One possibility is that  there’s a common theme of statism. The fourth sector is to be encouraged only insofar as it is consistent with the aims of the state. If it challenges those aims - as trades unionism did - it is to be crushed.
There is another possibility. Thatcher’s attack upon the fourth sector was, of course, an attack upon the working class. And Cameron feels free to try to resurrect the fourth sector  precisely because it will entail not a re-assertion of working class strength, but rather a new means of further empowering the rich.
It is, perhaps, no accident that two of the main policies embedding Cameron’s fourth sectorism are disguised way of giving hand-outs to the better off. Tax breaks for married couples are little more than a hand-out to people he likes. And proposals to encourage parents to set up schools favour those with the time, resources and (over) confidence to do so - who tend to be richer.
Maybe, then,  what we’re seeing here is a continuity in Tory attitudes. Thatcher’s hostility to the fourth sector, and Cameron’s embrace of it, are both founded in class politics - the desire to suppress the working class and promote the interests of the better-off.
But then, that’s the thing about class war - the Tories have always been so much better at it than Labour.

Comments

[Tom Freeman]

Life imitates art? The "fourth sector" was one of Nicola Murray's vapid initiatives in an episode of The Thick Of It:

"It's all about empowering ordinary people to do extraordinary things. The Fourth Sector is between the other three sectors, but it's also the periphery around them, so it's very much encompassing. It's incorporating, it's enveloping, within and without. We want to elect certain people as fourth sector pathfinders who are ordinary people doing extraordinary things within their community... but are not vigilantes."

[Richard Manns]

"Decentralisation of power" does not mean "hand-over to trades unions"; I seem to recall that Arthur Scargill wasn't a fan of votes in the million-strong NUM, and liked to centralise decision-making to himself?

[Luis Enrique]

First there is the question of whether the fourth sector will do a better job of "looking after the needy" than the state.

If the state under the Tories reduces its "helping the needy" and relies on the fourth sector, you could call that class war if the needy end up worse off. But they could end up better off - this is an empirical question the answer to which I don't know, although if I had to guess I'd guess worse off.

There's a secondary question on whether it's right to rely on the efforts of the good hearted, rather than just paying people to do the job of caring for the needy, in whatever form.

What's the third sector? I thought that was charities and NGOs. Aren't trade unions more like a 3rd sector organization?

[Tom P]

"the million-strong NUM"

you what now? I don't think it was ever that strong, but certainly not in the mid-80s.

wot t'other Tom said about The Thick Of It. Has Matthew Parris made a mistake or is this genuine Cameron Newspeak?

[twitter.com/dgwbirch]

It's government of all the talents (GOAT), surely? If Nicola Murray has a good idea, then Dave should use it. In fact, why not make Rebecca Front a minister and have a reality TV show around her attempts to make the transition from brilliant comedy actor to useless Cameron Crumpet.

[gappy]

I am a huge fan of this blog, to which I link regularly from my twitter account. I am a New Yorker and know zilch about English politics, with the exception of "The end of politics", which I loved. However, I have to disagree on this one on very generic grounds. Trade Unions are vastly centralized organizations and have often monopolistic power. They are also hardly voluntary. In several countries, membership and fees were mandatory for a number of industries. I don't know if Thatcher's attack was motivated by a class struggle. For sure unions, as "voluntary" organizations, seem to have lost their thrust a long time ago. Cameron's "big idea" has to do much more with the tension between decentralized knowledge and centralized decisions, which hayekian conservatives resolve in favor of the former, while totalitarian conservatives and progressives emphasize the latter. I am not sure this is a big idea or a new one. It always receives a lot of lip service, but it is quickly forgotten after the elections.

[john b]

But then, that’s the thing about class war - the Tories have always been so much better at it than Labour.

This reflects the fact that being a succesful government politician *inherently means* you're not working class, even if you were born working class, as you're doing a highly-paid skilled managerial job.

So to the extent that Labour represents the working class, it's because its MPs are sufficiently principled to favour other people's interests ahead of their own.

For Tory MPs, making all decisions on the basis of self-interest will generally also serve the interests of core Tory oters.

[chrisg]

I'm surprised at the idea proposed in this post that trades unions exist to represent the interests of the needy. I thought they existed to represent the collective interests of workers? Many needy people aren't workers - a key kind of neediness is the need for work - and therefore don't have a union to represent them. Indeed it is quite plausible that there are more such needy people as a result of union power, which protects the interests of labour market insiders partly at the expense of labour market outsiders.

No doubt the public sector unions will resist any attempts to undermine their monopoly on the provision of services to the needy if Cameron gets too serious about it.

[Luis Enrique]

chrisg,

yes I thought that, although I'd also say that workers need some bargaining power to push back against employers, especially those doing traditionally working class jobs, so I think you can say Trade Unions help the needy, in that sense.

[Tristan]

If it challenges those aims - as trades unionism did - it is to be crushed.

Or it gets subsumed and perverted to support the interests of the political classes as has now happened with trade unionism (and has been so for a long time).

Thatcher's battles look to me more like an attack on another part of the political class (and the miners got stuck in the middle).

[Ugg london]

Never frown, when you are sad, because you never know who is falling in love with your smile.

[Mark T]

Trade unions didn't challenge the state; they were the state and as we now know actively encouraged by our friends in the KGB. Attacking them was no more an assault on the working class than tearing down the anti fascist barrier in Berlin was 10 years later. Unions represent their members at best and their leaders most of the time.

[Belstaff Coat]

It's great to hear from you and see what you've been up to. In your blog I feel your enthusiasm for life. thank you.