In the abstract, David Cameron's "big society" ideas appeared to have merit. Brought down the nitty gritty, however, many of them look full of holes. And nowhere more so than in the countryside, where many tasks are already undertaken by volunteers and the capacity to hand still more responsibilities over to part-timers who will work for free are limited.

Two Big Society initiatives emerged this week as Mr Cameron and his ministers sought to put meat on the bones of what has been, up to now, more a set of principles that a policy. The first, to recruit an army of civic gardeners to maintain public spaces, understandably set off alarm bells for many professional council gardeners. The second, from Farms Minister Jim Paice to get potentially deadly ragwort removed from roadsides by volunteers, raised fears about the safety of livestock.

Let's be clear, many rural people already take on significant voluntary responsibilities. From running a luncheon club for the elderly to keeping the churchyard grass cut, rural villages are great examples of what Mr Cameron has now dubbed the Big Society. That's not because rural people are particularly civic minded – though many are, it is more because no official organisation exists to carry out such roles and if locals didn't muck in and help themselves and each other, the jobs wouldn't get done.

How easy it would be, however, to extend that volunteering still further in rural areas must be open to question. Organisations like the Rural Services Network, the biggest rural partnership organisation in the country, are certainly up for the challenge thrown down by the Prime Minister. Its members are, after all, already walking the walk, not just talking the talk. But it has concerns if what the Prime Minister is really hoping for is volunteers coming in to take over public service roles that are about to fall victim to savage spending cuts. "Great care must be taken in designing the services which the community may take on under the Big Society policies," says Network Chief Executive Graham Biggs. He is absolutely right.

Mr Cameron was suspected early on in his campaign to build a Big Society of using what appeared to be a sound proposal as cover for public spending cutbacks. The Western Morning News gave him the benefit of the doubt when that suggestion first came from the Trade Unions; we said we didn't believe it to be the case.

Now, however, we are not so sure. It is pretty clear that having talked tough on taking huge sums out of the public services in order to get Britain's finances back into kilter Mr Cameron is struggling to take people with him. That's no surprise; it is easy to say "we're going to be tough on public spending", far harder to identify the cuts and single out the jobs that will have to go yet remain popular.

The Prime Minister would like to have it both ways, claiming spending cuts are good for Britain and will improve the way our public services work. That's a big ask, especially in rural areas, where volunteers do so much.