Paul Goodman has written about five problems with focusing on the Big Society. One of the problems he cites is that it is a bit vague:
"It's a bit vague. I suspect that this is intrinsic to the Big Society concept. Lots of good and often little things happening locally are hard for voters to grasp, and for government to package in a big way - unlike, say, selling council houses to their tenants or shares to individuals. Those policies gave people concrete, personal gains - and government clear, hard numbers of winners. The Big Society isn't a retail offer."
I'm not sure that vagueness is intrinsic to the concept; rather, I think it's a response to the challenges encountered in translating the concept into policy prescriptions. The main attempt to do so came when the party released the report Building a Big Society back in March this year. That report contained a number of policy ideas that were quite precise but ultimately unimpressive.
Some of the proposals seemed to be public relations gimmicks - having civil servants do community service, or organising a "Big Society Day". Others were far more worrying. Using taxpayers' money to support the radical left-wing group London Citizens to train activists, in particular - I wrote about that for the TPA blog.
If the Conservatives are looking for an alternative theme which simultaneously attacks their reputation as the party of the rich, addresses the vital subject of the economy and could be clarified to a powerful policy agenda, then rather than advancing the Big Society agenda again I would still suggest attacking crony capitalism, as I did on this site before the election.
