ONE of David Cameron’s main focuses when coming to power just over 12 months ago – his desire to create a Big Society – has been kicked around by all and sundry, applauded by some and ridiculed by others.

This week, the PM has returned to his theme to promote the Big Society.

This time out, he has played to the perceived strength of his case by zooming in on the way British citizens currently view charitable donations and volunteering.

In a renewed effort to promote the Big Society, he is calling for us to give more to charity – in terms of both time and money.

Downing Street strategists are looking at how social networking sites can help the Government deliver this part of its agenda.

Initiatives include being able to make charitable donations directly from cash machines or via mobile phones.

And, in terms of giving time by volunteering, social networking sites may provide a new vehicle capable of reaching new audiences.

When Big Society was first publicised, critics soon emerged. Among them were those who, rather than suggest the devil was in the detail, worried more that there was not enough detail. The more surprising, then, that when he returned to his theme on Monday, Mr Cameron appeared a little light on detail.Š For example, the statement on one official site that: “Government policies will also be tested for social value as well as value for money.”

Although this particular plank of policy may need more detail, others have been worked up to be presented in what looks to be a much more viable and credible manner.

For example,Š this week we have been told that there will be a £10m social action fund to support measures to promote giving and boost volunteering in priority areas in England; prizes of up to £100,000 for the best solutions to “volunteer challenges”; a £30m fund to improve the effectiveness of infrastructure organisations which support front-line volunteering; £1m to support the Youthnet volunteering website and £700,000 to support Philanthropy UK, which connects wealthy donors to charities.

We could believe there is plenty of detail there.

But whether or not it’s enough of the sort of detail required to re-energise a previously criticised policy remains to be seen.