Lots of people are debating the localism bill at the moment. Asking if ideas like the ‘right to challenge’ will empower communities. In one of those conversations on a social networking site a heartening picture was painted of various public services working together to protect a frail and recently bereaved 90 year old. Enabling her to remain independent and living in her own home. The correspondent painted a picture of such service as being an example of the Big Society, but was also worried about the dangers of localised self-interest replacing a well tried democratic system. She contrasted the dangers of localism (with the pushy getting their way) with the possibilities of a fairer and more communal life in a  Big Society.

Like her I think the urge of humans to build social capital is universal, and something that The Big Society idea neatly taps in to. Though of course there are other urges, such as our ability to be exploitative, deceitful, to gang up on the weak and to act as free riders on the resources of others that are linked to our 'success' as a species. The challenge surely for a civilised society is to find some ethical and just balance between these competing forces within all of us. So we preserve what’s best and censure the worst.

Whilst I am heartened by her description of the care wrapping around her elderly mother, I would point out that her examples of the GP, the housing association and social services are precisely NOT the Big Society. These are public servants paid for through taxation (or by controlled social housing rents).

The danger I see is that ‘hand in hand’ with the Big Society is the dismantling of much of what is good under a set of economic market concepts, and a predominant ethos of self interest as the creator of wealth. Individualised wealth perhaps, but not social capital.

The correspondent that prompted my blog also painted a picture of the potential for democracy to become hijacked by vested interest - the pushy and the privileged, who know how to use the system. Of course the problem is that our democracy is not very healthy. As the media scandal at News International at the national level only shows.

The sad thing though is that pattern is often repeated locally too, with a commonality of interest between local media, politicians and private business interests. So yes, the threat of localism is its ability to enable these dark forces to despoil our countryside, privatise our care homes, corrupt our politicians and stigmatise the poor. The biggest check on them has traditionally been a strong and confident public service ethos.

Sadly few people bother to vote in local elections. Local government stifled by a centrally controlled system and the massive frontloaded cuts on local councils has simply created huge paralysis. There is little evidence I can see of strong process being promoted around what to cut and what to protect. Resulting in a huge and wasteful de-skilling of the public sector. In a few years as our hugely costly (privatised) prisons overflow we'll rue the day we sacked all those dedicated (and cheap) youth workers.

I only hope in 5 years other 90 year olds can be surprised that the system somehow works. Already for many in poor areas it simply doesn't.

Are there any solutions? Well, a more radical devolution of power might help, as well as a new rhetoric that praises public service rather than denigrating it. Plus some stronger processes to open up local commissioning and budgeting. Not sure this localism bill will bring that.

An interesting idea from Japan. A form of participatory budgeting. 1% of local council expenditure is ring-fenced for investment in building civil society. Local people, not politicians, have the say where it goes. 1% doesn't sound much. But in a city like Manchester that would be an investment of well over £10million into 'the big society'. Across the country it could replace a huge swathe of funding being lost to the third sector. Sadly nothing like that is in the localism bill.

Do our politicians not trust us enough to give real power over 1%, preferring to con us into thinking we will have power over the whole pot?