Toby Blume looks at the Conservative Party manifesto

The Conservatives have given us their vision of Big Society, inviting every single one of us to ‘join the government of Britain'. Their manifesto has three key themes; ‘to build a new economic model; to build the Big Society and to build a political system where people have more power and control over their lives'. The construction industry will be pleased with all that building planned.

Like Labour, the Tories plan to keep citizens very busy, holding public services to account and taking over failing institutions. Power will be distributed from Whitehall and Town Halls (not to mention unelected quangos) to local people - which is remarkably similar to David Miliband's talk of ‘Double Devolution' a few years ago. But the Tories have a new name for their DIY governance revolution - ‘collaborative democracy'.
The goal of getting all of us involved in neighbourhood groups is ambitious but laudable and the ‘neighbourhood army' owes much to the Saul Alinsky model of community organising brought to global prominence by Barak Obama. Purists may question whether the authors of the Big Society have truly understood the principles that underpin Alinsky's approach, as described in his 1971 book ‘Rules for Radicals', but the proof of that particular pudding will be in the eating.
These ‘little platoons of civil society' will soon be able to start new schools, take over parks and libraries faced with closure, run football clubs and hold the police to account. In fact nothing would be beyond the realms of community management with a ‘right to bid' to run any community service instead of the state. Maybe it's just me, but that's really got my mind racing at the possibilities . . . but perhaps a community-led Parachute Regiment is just me being mischievous.

There will be grants for the neighbourhood army in poorer areas as part of a ‘fair deal on grants' for the voluntary sector. This should be well received by the community sector - and those of us in the Local Grants Forum http://www.urbanforum.org.uk/handy-guides/defending-local-grants - who have voiced concern over the erosion of grants by unintelligent commissioners too eager to see contracts as an investment panacea.

Speaking of investment . . . a Big Society Bank, using unclaimed assets, will provide investment for third sector organisations. However, aside from the name, the only apparent difference with Labour's plans for a Social Investment Bank appears to be the reference to ‘bodies with a track record' which seems to exclude new organisations from their big idea.

The Planning system is in for major overhaul, with the introduction of ‘open-source planning', that would give neighbourhoods greater control over local development. Regional Spatial Strategies and the newly established Infrastructure Planning Commission are out and in its place comes a ‘collaborative process that involves the neighbourhood'. Where development takes place, neighbourhoods will be able to retain a proportion of the tariff paid by the developer to the local authority. There will also be greater flexibility over what buildings can be used for, which could be a useful tool for local areas to respond more rapidly to changing needs.

A new ‘community right to buy' would enable local people to take over local land and buildings, giving added impetus to the community asset-transfer agenda.

The Conservatives' plans for political reform are wide ranging, though they are the only major party to retain the first past the post electoral system. MPs could be recalled by constituents if serious wrongdoing is proven and we'll have a ‘mainly elected' House of Lords if consensus can be reached. Citizens will be able to trigger Parliamentary debates through petitions and offered the chance to comment on proposed legislation.

There are a number of measures designed to make government more transparent and make information freely available to the public, including senior civil servants' wages and public contracts. We're told that ‘sunlight is the best disinfectant', but try telling that to people who catch MRSA! In a move designed to improve efficiency private sector executives are to be appointed to government department boards (perhaps the omission of the third sector is an oversight?)

There will be fewer targets and ‘less bureaucratic inspection' for local authorities and ring-fenced funding will end allowing budgets to be directed towards local priorities.

Companies found to be discriminating against women would be subject to equal pay audits (though given that this would be illegal under current legislation, one would hope that they would be subject to prosecution and enforcement anyway). A £1m fund which will be established to meet the additional costs of disabled people that want to stand as MPs or councillors may help boost the lack of diversity and representativeness among our elected officials.

Health policy will seek to address inequalities, with a ‘health premium' to weight funding towards poorer people and carers, who are all too often overlooked in anti-poverty policy, receiving more support including direct payments. Thirty years ago, the incoming Thatcher government did not take kindly to the late Peter Townsend and his colleagues highlighting inequalities in health in their Black Report. The targeting of resources to those with the worst health outcomes therefore represents a shift in the Conservative party's position.

The pledge to ‘increase the private sector's share of the economy in every part of the country' makes sense in regions where the dominance of public sector spending mean job losses will be high when public funds are cut. But I'm struggling to see how this policy can be consistent with commitments to tackle inequality, without falling back on a Thatcherite notion of ‘trickle down' theory.

Unelected quangos will be for the chop unless they can show they perform a ‘technical function' or meet a need for political impartiality. Presumably the proposed Office for Budget Responsibility, Office of Tax Simplification and Consumer Protection Agency will all meet these criteria.

The Tories plans to establish Work Clubs, for long-term unemployed people to ‘gather together to exchange skills, find opportunities, make useful contacts and provide mutual support' conjuring up images of 1980s job clubs, as portrayed so satirically in The Full Monty.

On bank reform, there are measures to improve the availability of credit to small businesses and some measures to take action on excessive charging for credit. There are also plans for a social responsibility levy on banks, which we've been told would pay for tax breaks for married couples as well as funding free financial advice and reducing the budget deficit.

And finally . . . the Tories tell us they will use behavioural economics to ‘nudge' us into making better decisions. That might be a good idea, but if I were them I would've kept quiet about that. I can't believe that telling someone you're going to use psychology to influence their decision (albeit in a paternalistic way) is likely to be especially well received.