Notwithstanding the charitable zeal with which Mr Snow launched his flotilla of five dinghys across the Channel, the example does highlight a couple of problems with a vision of the Big Society.

• The Big Society vision will probably only have traction for a narrow set of circumstances. Air travel crises aren’t amongst them – with tens of thousands of holiday-makers stranded across the globe, it is likely that State involvement in rescue efforts is not only desirable, but necessary (as the Conservatives themselves recognised over the weekend).
• A Big Society would result in wide variation in the quality of services available to people. Mr Snow managed to rescue a tiny fraction of those impacted by the current air crisis. Yet there are many people stuck further afield who did not benefit from Snow’s efforts, and some who would probably never benefit given the logistical/financial difficulties in assisting them (i.e. market failure can still occur even when charities are involved). A consequence of a Big Society is a “postcode lottery”.
• A Big Society still requires resources to be committed to causes. Mr Snow might have pockets deep enough to assist a few hardy travellers, or have pliant enough friends/relatives that such resources can be raised. However, if the State in the Big Society wants ends to be achieved – such as the rescuing of all stranded travellers – then they will either need to act themselves, or commit resources to third parties to act on their behalf. In either case, the small State in the Big Society is spending taxpayers money and would be accountable for doing so. Thus a Big Society may not help alleviate the deficit, nor alleviate governance surrounding the spending of State resources – two supposed benefits of a Big Society, rather than a Big State.

Far from being a golden example of the Big Society in action, Dan Snow’s escapades highlight some of its difficulties.