The Big Society is in even bigger trouble, and accusing fingers are already being waved. Most have so far pointed at the communities department and in yesterday's Guardian a "senior Whitehall source", putting views that seemed to reflect those of the Cabinet Office or No10, accused communities secretary Eric Pickles of undermining the agenda by refusing to police councils' commitment to it.

Certainly, Pickles has done little to bolster his credentials here. Having agreed an eye-poppingly tight spending review settlement, he's stuck rigidly to the localism policy  and left town halls to wrestle with punishing cuts. Yet he shouldn't carry this can alone; and nor should the government blame departmental officials for failing to deliver the agenda.

In fact, the Big Society agenda is collapsing because it's collided with this government's overwheening mission reducing the budget deficit, and because the localism agenda means that the centre can no longer manipulate local authorities. Under localism, local areas control their own affairs; small wonder that, faced with swingeing cuts, the first things they cut are grants for non-statutory charity and voluntary work.

Caught between these two powerful dynamics, it's hard to see how much of the Big Society agenda can survive; if volunteering increases, it will probably have more to do with rising unemployment than strengthening charities and social enterprises. There is, however, one corner of the agenda that won't be badly hurt by the retrenchment in town halls: the mutuals policy depends not on the generosity of councils, but on service funding pots that, while thinning, will continue to flow.

There are plenty of obstacles to tackle before our public services become, as Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude put it last week, "a vibrant innovative sector teeming with different models of provider". But Maude has already worked out how to overcome many of them: with the 'right to provide', 21 pilot schemes, mentoring support, dedicated finance and a troubleshooting taskforce, he should be able to oversee the establishment of a first wave of mutuals.

Then comes the tricky bit. For if mutuals are to become widespread, staff across the public sector will have to be convinced that this is a model that can thrive. So the pilots' fates will be watched with keen interest, and at that point, they'll have to start winning contracts.

This is where things could fall over. Between 2002 and 2008, I watched closely as the last government encouraged public buyers to source goods and services from social enterprises, small businesses and charities rather than plumping for what appeared to be the cheapest deal on the table. In 2007, in his first government job - that of third sector minister - Ed Miliband told me proudly that he had won £125m to support non-commercial organisations bidding for public contracts; that he was retraining 2,000 public service commissioners; that success was about "the commissioner being persuaded that this is a more community-focused way of delivering the service." His successor, Phil Hope, told me much the same - and produced the same insipid results.
In this context, it is depressing to hear from Gareth Davies, head of the Office for Civil Society, that he wants to support mutuals to win contracts by getting public buyers "thinking about what the users need, then thinking about how you structure the contract on the back of thatî; or that commissioners should consider "the full set of social returns" that a contractor can deliver. He's right, of course; but Labour tried the same exhortations with a much bigger fund to support bidders, and a much bigger buyer retraining scheme and made barely a dent in the problem.

The first sign of madness, they say, is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results. Francis Maude will no doubt get his new mutuals - but unless the government finds a more convincing way to help them win contracts, very few are likely to thrive.

Written by Matt Ross, CSW