Rescuing Cameron's vision of the Big Society
David Cameron's chief policy adviser Steve Hilton has been told to stop doing deep thinky stuff for the moment and come back to rescue the PM's vision of a Big Society. No 10 has decided they need to "get a grip" or risk seeing the idea vanish in a puff of cynical smoke.
Next week Mr Cameron will attempt to breathe new life into an initiative which, he believes, is often misunderstood and unfairly mocked.
Expect an article in one of the Sunday papers, attributed to Mr Cameron himself, explaining how there is no contradiction between the dream of a Big Society and the reality of big cuts to the voluntary sector.
Expect a speech on Monday with the PM reaffirming his commitment to replacing Britain's "broken society" with a "Big Society".
Expect a series of announcements about extra cash for charities, more places in the National Citizen Service and new details on the creation of the Big Society Bank.
Downing Street is keen to stress that there are three key strands to the Big Society:
1) Encouraging social and voluntary action
2) Decentralising power
3) Reforming public services
The first of those, (often regarded as the definition of the Big Society), is the least critical, officials would argue. Yes, charities and volunteering are part of the vision, but more important is the way in which the centralised state withdraws to allow individuals and communities to take control and responsibility.
This still leaves them with a question of timing - what former Tony Blair speech-writer Phil Collins describes in The Times today as "the Eric Morecambe Problem" - all the right notes, not necessarily in the right order.
Local councils are making cuts to voluntary groups now, but the valuable new contracts charities are expecting to win to provide public services won't be signed until later. No 10 claims that the tens of billions in delivery deals with charitable organisations will eventually dwarf anything the sector loses in council cuts, but the extra income will arrive after the cuts have bitten.
It is the decentralising of power, though, that is the real problem for the Big Society evangelists. Local authorities are being given greater say in deciding what they spend their money on and, of course, what they cut. For Westminster to start bossing them around over the budgets for voluntary groups is at odds with the "localism" bit of the coalition agreement.
As Phil Collins puts it in his fictional memo from the PM to his strategy team: "Everyone assumes it's the cuts that are damaging us. But, actually, letting local authorities do what they want with the money is hurting us just as much." There is increasing evidence that councils are choosing to slash grants to charities rather than hit frontline services. "We have to get off this hook", Mr Collins suggests the PM should say. "We need some money in the Budget and a rethink on the pace of localism."
Mr Collins, himself a former No 10 strategist, wonders if Mr Cameron should "mandate" local authorities to "buy from the voluntary sector".
That won't happen. Instead, the PM will stress the importance of the £110m Transition Fund, a (relatively modest) pot of extra cash from the National Lottery to help charities survive cuts to their funding He will promote the Big Society Bank, which could have as much as £300m to invest in social projects from the summer.
But, essentially, Mr Cameron will do what he can to try to spike the argument that the Big Society is simply about telling people they must provide services for nothing that the state used to provide for free.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~46~RS~)
I'm 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Interesting times ahead especially on the funding front, the 2 groups I help to setup and run work on something called matched funding.
Say we need £3000 we have to approach several bodies including the council.
so the breakdown of the £3000 would work this way
we ask
riverside for £1000
have your say funding for £1000
and the local council for £1000
so all three have to agree on the project individually for us to gain the funding. this can take upto 3 months dependent on the funding criteria. If just one says no we have wasted 3 months and will not receive funding from the other 2 until the next round of funding or when we are able to find others that will make up the matched funding.
I have sat on some of these award panels and most of the funding is retained until a week or 2 before the funding is due to be reclaimed by the original provider to allow the maximum amount of bids for the funding period in question. Which in turn qualifies the next round of money on the amount of bids received.
This is the sort of thing that will ultimately hold up big society and disheartened those that choose to try and do something good for society.
Then we have all the legal red tape public liability and so on more than most will be able to understand without dedicated teams setup by local councils to deal with any legal or environmental concerns of the groups and keep them falling fowl of the compensation society.
Complain about this comment
David Cameron's big society had been proven to be a total con!
I'm happy that Liverpool City Council was the first to announce they will not take part in this charade.
How can he expect charities and volunteer groups to survive when funding is being cut across the board to these same groups.
BIG SOCIETY? Dont make me laugh. The only society cameron cares for, our the 1% society, his fellow tory millionaires and Eton boys! He has no grasp on what REAL society is!
Complain about this comment
Good grief. When are we going to wake up to these crass, two-faced, mendacious cretins we allow to run our country and our lives. Don't you understand that this country is run for the benefit of the few and to hell with the many. Big Society - big load of *******s! Until the people of this country realise what a big con our so called democracy is then we will continue to be screwed by these self-serving parasites. Good on Liverpool Council, its really difficult to con scousers (being one myself).
Complain about this comment
If cameron wants to rescue his 'big society' he needs to start being honest about it. He isn't doing it to make a carey sharey society, since it already exists, in fact as it has been reported ConDem plans will 'destroy' 'big society' or the volunteer sector as its more commonly known. Lets be honest Cameron, its all about cost reduction nothing more nothing less. You want us to do the jobs and responsibilities you should be carrying out, for free, and that is the crux of 'big society' its more tory ideology. Politicians seem to expect everything for free...
Complain about this comment
Haveyoursayrejected this is what i said when it was first announced a Big society = Bigger Welfare State to support all the volunteers in running daytime services.
We loose so many volunteers through work programs and the need to work that some weeks things are just run by myself my wife and the chairperson. since last year we have lost 5 on one project through them returning to work.
What do i get in return for this time and effort in the way of recognition by the government. Constant harassment about benefits accused of fraud by the benefits system threatened with police cautions..
Really does make you wonder why we bother at the end of the day...
My own illness is worsening due to government mentality and the benifits department mentality, yesterday I left £150 hanging out of cash machine due to a full blown panic attack, thankfully the machine pulled it back in after it had been sat there a while. Its going to take 10 days for me to get it back, Im so lucky as anyone could have walked away with it.
Complain about this comment
I'm generally in favour of the Big Society as I'm keen to reduce the size and influence of today's Big State. However, I do worry about the idea of giving large sums of money to charities to pay them for doing things that have hitherto been done by local authorities. This is no different to councils outsourcing provision of services to the private sector - nothing wrong with that in principle but it is not a Big Society shift, just a change of supplier.
When Dame Elizabeth Hoodless made her complaint about government cuts to the voluntary sector this week, it didn't take long to work out why this former Labour councillor was complaining. 80% of her organisation (CSV)'s funding comes from the taxpayer. CSV is just another part of the Big State that has become addicted to state subsidy, just like local government, quangos and a significant minority of the "economically inactive".
The important discussion we need to have is about which areas of life the state should withdraw from, in whole or in part, not to "get services on the cheap" but in order to allow local communities to have more control. For example, how many people know who the board members of their local NHS Trust are? Who appoints them? How do we get rid of them if we don't like how they are running our local health services?
The Big Society is a 10 year project to change the nation's culture from one of "entitlement" and dependency on the state to one of involvement and engagement with local affairs and, crucially, a feeling of empowerment and responsibility. It's not helpful to have to start this at a time of financial stringency but if we defer it, there will never be a good time to restart the process.
Complain about this comment
As we move into Big society will we see little council tax bills?
As services are cut will we get our payments to the central system reduced??
I think not we will see further rises in council tax instead of reductions..
Maybe 1/4 of all council tax collected should be automatically sidelines into community banking and revenue totally separated from the council. the less the sate does for us the less we should pay the state.
Complain about this comment
Mark Easton.
"..vision of a Big Society ... attributed to Mr Cameron himself.."
if he'd taken mind-expanding drugs, that vision might have amounted to something. however...
Complain about this comment
Expect a speech on Monday with the PM reaffirming his commitment to replacing Britain's "broken society" with a "Big Society".
---------
Oh, were we a broken society before he and Clegg came on to the scene then?
Puff! Puff! And I'm not being cynical.
Complain about this comment
It is becoming the beg society. Anybody who has worked for a charity is unlikely to be impressed with their efficiency and governance so why is it good to hand over so much to organisations that have far less scrutiny than local government. Back to basics reborn and the big society will go the same way. Ask those in Brum tonight!
Complain about this comment
6. At 6:51pm on 11 Feb 2011, vstrad wrote:
The Big Society is a 10 year project to change the nation's culture from one of "entitlement" and dependency on the state to one of involvement and engagement with local affairs and, crucially, a feeling of empowerment and responsibility.
========================================
"Entitlement". Hah - don't make me laugh. I was recently made redundant. I have been in work for the last 26 years, paid all my taxes, national insurance. I'm now made to feel like a naughty schoolboy at the Job Centre for the princely sum of £64 a week which I will only get for 6 months. Tell me where empowerment and responsibility comes into that. Big society - you can go and take a big running jump along with Camoron and his grasping millionaire cronies. It's little wonder people try to screw the system when they see Politicians and Bankers with their noses constantly in the trough without any comeback.
Complain about this comment
John, The really sad thing is these people in power are doing it just because they can, not because they have to. And because of these cuts there will be more homeless, but fewer outreach workers to support them, more hard drug addicts, but less rehabilitation places, more disenfranchised and unemployed youngsters, but less jobs and less opportunities, more hardship for the majority of us and much less support, instead we will lose many more things that make our society big. Libraries, public toilets (even the Victorians did public toilets!!!) forests, SureStart centres, elderly care homes. We have already lost the traditional meeting places pubs and post offices, soon we will have a society devoid of any contact, the only exception will be work or prison...
Complain about this comment
The fact is if the Government did their jobs properly we wouldn't need a big society, maybe just a teeny weeny society of part timers. The volunteer sector is a result of Governments incompetence and in-ability to manage the country correctly. Not only are they failing society on the most basic of levels but now they are refusing to pay for those failings it's a disgrace.
Complain about this comment
"The Big Society is a 10 year project to change the nation's culture from one of "entitlement" and dependency on the state to one of involvement and engagement with local affairs and, crucially, a feeling of empowerment and responsibility."...
Betty Swallocks. There is no 'national' culture of dependency, just right wing rhetoric. There is a sense of entitlement, we are entitled to expect the Government to do the job we elected them to do. This is nothing more than a cost cutting exercise at our expense.
Complain about this comment
Haveyoursay Rejected indeed most people do not realise the 800 million Osbourne is taking from the banks in extra revenue is actually being paid by them general joe public so not only do the banks pat themselves on the back they also by pass paying back the money by raising car insurance and other insurances by up to 4 times the amount to build base capital. So while every one says great stuff extra 800 million from the banks to the coffers of the public purse that was used to bail them out the stark reality is We ARE paying this 800 million not the banks.
There can be no other explanation for the criminal rise in insurance prices. Ive been talking to many members of my community about this and most have seen the insurance on the car double with little chance of getting lower quotes when shopping around...
The banks know they have joe public over a financial barrel that is supported in law and is a criminal offence not to have.
We are creating some of the greatest divides society will have seen in the last 100 years.
Complain about this comment
The big society is about holding national elites to account.Seeing the daily escalation of protest in Egypt by the Ipod generation,leaders everywhere know they cannot resist the popular will.
It is instantaneous,it is now,it is everywhere.A tide of revolution is sweeping the Middle East against undeserved wealth and power.In Egypt it is about basic rights,a political revolution.In Europe it will be an economic revolution as a capitalist crisis,not of our making, destroys jobs,security and families.
The trust,patience and resignation of the past is not available online.We don`t want our reward in heaven, we want now.If you want change,that``s fine,but not at our expense and the social costs mustn`t fall on students,the disabled,the unemployed.
The big society! Prove it,we`re waiting.Don`t prevaricate,it`s the fire next time.
Complain about this comment
John...The Governments idea of making bankers (ermm their sponsors, so I hear!) pay is to make them PAYE more contributions, by a little, by increasing their profits, by giving them a huge tax reduction and allowing them not to pay tax on overseas earnings quietly, but at the same time really loudly announcing a pitiful bankers tax.
Really quite astonishing they have the nerve to act like this when times are still so difficult in the country, they seem not to realise people are struggling.
Also why encourage finance here, that is why, I presume they have reduced their tax, It would be wrong of me to think it was because of any funding they may have received. Why encourage the same industry which very nearly brought the country to its knees over here to do more business, why can they not build new business here, encourage science, so places like Pfizer don't decide to move out, pharmaceuticals is, just about a major industry here. We could have a thriving technology industry, we could even have a cutting edge energy industry in this country with the funding. Instead the banks get it???
Complain about this comment
Pfizer and many other RnD's are moving into the ECSN as well but I wont go into those problems now thats another fight...
We do need massive amounts of new tech but with old thought behind the driving force that wont happen.
Complain about this comment
While this Govt strips the country to its bare bones to keep the elite in the lap of luxury the courageous people of Egypt have shown how to treat those in power who ignore their wishes. Hopefully we in this country have now seen how it is done. Camoron and his cronies have had their warning. No more platitudes, rhetoric, hypocrisy and ideology please - we're not all stupid.
Complain about this comment
At some point in the next 4 and a bit years Mr Cameron will take his joke of an idea with him back to opposition. This government is nothing short of farcical! The only good thing about it is that both parties will be out of power from generations by the time they are finished.
Complain about this comment
Indeed HYSR
what we saw in egypt was the first application of a hive mind all thanks to the Internet, the next level of human thought and conscience.
The next bi election in the UK is going to be very interesting, the Legalise Cannabis Alliance are registering for it, what happens once they get going start putting out councillors and fielding MP's
Change is coming some for good some for bad. New industries are already being fought for. One is discussed here by prof Les Iversen http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/bringing-cannabis-back-into-the-medicine-cabinet/ But as you say "No more platitudes, rhetoric, hypocrisy and ideology please - we're not all stupid" all stands in the way. of a multi billion pound industry that is being suppressed so Pfizer and others will pack up and go, thankfully we don't yet a a building or fuel industry that runs of this awful stuff :)
However this drug may end up along with others running our Big society as it has Big money and Big power and Big crime. We don't have the power to protect our current society internationaly in the drugs markets due to the cuts in defence let alone the cuts to the police, its now almost legal to drink drive with the closure of the forensic labs which again only goes further to dismantle society, or do the government plan on introducing and automatic ticket for over the limit.
The more I think about the consequences of these cuts and the proposed solutions the sicker my heart feels. Watching 'forgotten heroes' while typing this the treatment of our troops is soul destroying where is the society that will care for them that will be able to relate to them ? we haven't had a society capable of this type of common emotional feeling since world war 2, when to feel that way was normal most people had seen the horrors of war.
There is so much that our government to do if it chose to but wont, will they like the result of the society that grows out of this ideology?.
Complain about this comment
"There is increasing evidence that councils are choosing to slash grants to charities rather than hit frontline services."
You've hit the nail on the head with that sentence. The 'Big Society' is all about cutting front-line public services and replacing them with pay-to-use services for those who can afford it and charity for the rest of us. That is its whole purpose. No amount of spin or re-branding can disguise that fundamental truth. How can they sell that?
The reason it is becoming increasingly unpopular is because the penny is starting to drop with more and more people.
Complain about this comment
He should give it up now and save himself the embarrassment.
Many many people already give time to voluntary work - trying to politicise it is very much a bad idea especially at a time when other priorites and policies he is pursuing are actively damaging much of what is already done on a voluntary basis.
Complain about this comment
The main reason why Mr Cameron's vision of a 'big society' is not gathering momentum in a mmedia frenzy sense, is because of the way that it is being presented has missed out the most important element of a 'big society' ... that is the 'economic element'.
The big society has made a good deal of progress recently with one issue:
1) multi-culturalism has failed
but the next phase must be economic for it to connect with the electorate... how about ...
- 'shop' a welfare cheat, or drug dealer or tax fraudster or illegal immigrant?
- or better still ... Buy British ... British consumers can right the British economy by needing only buying British goods and services wherever possible e.g. when buying bacon there is invariably some British ham or bcaon somewhere and we don't need to keep importing millions of tons of Dutch inferior quality 'water pumped' product
The idea of 'big society' isn't dead ... it just hasn't got started yet ... the policy should be a 'big British society'.
Simples Mr Easton ... even you could do it if you tried!
Complain about this comment
I have several concerns about the Big Society, but the central idea that decisions should be made as close as possible to where real useful activity is, I fully support.
However I think that the point that #6 vstrad made about 80% of CSV's income coming from public funds may be true, but the conclusion made is certainly not true for the 2 charities I volunteer for. One gets 90% of its funding from public funds, has one paid worker (2 days a week) and the 40 volunteers could either help the children in need or spend their time running jumble sales and fund raidsing events or society could face a much larger bill dealing with the consequences of dysfunctional families. The other charity gets about 80% of its income from public funds. The full time workers in our office work long hours and the 60 volunteers could not help to 5000 people we help every year without their support. The financial impact we have on the local community is, according to the mayor, greater than that of the local professional rugby club. Lots of charities provide 'good value for money' but do rely on public funding. vstrad's comment may be true in the case of CSV (I don't know either way), but as a sweeping generalisation it is inaccurate or deliberately misleading.
I have two major concerns about a the Big Society. They are not mortal blows, but they do need to be addressed. It is good that people are concerned about local issues, but the length of their involvement is a matter of concern. Many charities experience a high turnover of volunteers with a few people remaining as stabilisers. This may have consequences to long term planning. In the school where I taught the governors' main influence was in setting the budget and making appointments. We had 3 vocal parent governors, who, for pesonal reasons, enlarged our Special Needs budget at the expense of the library, which received only £50 a year for new books. Just as they left (because their children had left) an IT specialist came along and convinced everyone that expensive upgrades were essential at the expense of the enhanced Special Needs budget. These governors all had valid points and identified issues, but their influence resulted in sudden changes in provision which seriously affected individual pupils. The teachers just got on with it as best they could trying to help all the pupils, but with each sudden change we got more frustrated. So my first concern is changing attitudes due to the transient nature of volunteers leading to a loss of direction. This is not a vote for the status quo, development and changes of direction are needed.
My second concern is the big picture. One of my criticisms of government policy is the lack of the way that policies do not inter connect. For instance, I can understand (may not agree with) the reason for the proposal that people in Social Housing should be asked to move out once their income has gone above a certain level. However these more successful people might be amongst those very people who have got involved in the local community and help make a difference at all levels from simple help to decision making. Their loss (just because they got a promotion at work or their small business is successful) might not benefit the community. In a similar, but much more serious, way what about a successful consortium of local schools and a popular group of GP practices. What if the schools do not want to do a drug education programme, because they believe a large programme would imply that there was a problem and this would deter potential parents. The GPs don't want to put more money into treatment as they believe that they are just covering up for the schools' poor educational policy. Market forces might sort out the problem, but only after lives have been wrecked. The danger is that with more fragmentation a group might be doing well in their narrow relationship with their community, whilst not fully considering their broader relationship. It's not good now - the Big Society could make it worse especially if personal financial benefit comes into play.
The challenge of the Big Society is to put in structures that promote stabilty (not stagnation!) and cohesion without stifling the freedom, increased local invovement and autonomy it hopes to achieve. Market forces respond too slowly. A poor directionless year at school or a diagnostic test not routinely provided represent missed and sometimes irreplacable opportunities. A child cannot wait until a school understands the reasons for falling numbers and does something about it.
Complain about this comment
The cuts for local authority housing services is frightening; we live on a privately owned estate (ex-LA) but can already see service reductions on neighbouring council owned property.
Our transition was rocky, but residents are so happy with our private landlord some have been making films example -- ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eljPAWS7NNM ) and engaging in other avenues of expression.
We're hopeful that our services won't be impacted and hope because we're with a private landlord that will be the case. But difficult times all around.
Complain about this comment
I think us underclasses need to be openly derisive about this scam.
The two main planks of it are:
1) Make us unemployed and have us live in poverty. Expect us to come back and do our old jobs - or someone elses - for free.
2) Make massive cuts in spending and put out a smoke screen of 'localism' to try and deflect blame for the consequences onto local councillors, GPs etc.
Sorry - I'm not having it.
If the tories want to make massive cuts for ideological reasons they have the power to do so. But as the people doing this they must take responsibility for the ensuing collapse.
I for one will not be doing someone elses job for free and I will pointing blame where it belongs - the people who made the policy, not the people who have to administer it.
Complain about this comment
The tide of public sector redundancies mount,the scale of cuts to education,local authorities and welfate begin to bite,the big society rhetoric increases.
Intended as a cohesive idea in a society which has become progressively unequal, it is now a cacaphony of conflicting voices as the nation fragments into those with work and those without,rich and poor,housed and dehoused,multicultured and plain bewildered.
A sign of the times:This morning the government announced it has withdrawn redundancy notices on 500 debt advisors.Slogan for the big society. "Pawnbrokers of the world unite!
They really are a sorry,intellectually bankrupt lot.If they genuinely want a big society start with a structural inequality only matched by the US and some feudal despotisms in Central Asia.
Complain about this comment
"1) Encouraging social and voluntary action
2) Decentralising power
3) Reforming public services"
Why is it that with number 2 being a stated aim, that tories are and always have been, opposed to any form of self governance for Scotland?
You can't trust the tories and the union is not working, time for England and Scotland to be independent!
C McK
Complain about this comment
The phrase "Big Society" while appearing to be a little woolly and hard to explain is really quite simple and is readily interchangeable with the core Conservative principle... "Help Yourselves"
The rich will "Help Themselves" to chunks of the NHS, The Forests, Military Land, Oh, and don't we have a few banking shares lying around doing nothing at the moment...
The rest of us will have to "help ourselves", if we want decent schools, post offices, debt advice, rubbish collected etc.
It's just a matter of context really.
Complain about this comment
I see Cambo is yet again trying to revive his vision of the Big Society, lets face it if he can't sell it to his party then how's he going to sell it to the punter in the street? No doubt he'll blame local govt. for cutting funding to voluntary organisations whilst conveniently forgetting he's responsible for cuts to local govt.funding.
It doesn't look great for him if Lord Wei is now only doing 2 days a week as he has to make a living. Also has Cambo actually ever thought how many people are remotely interested in his vision or want to be part of it?
By cutting funding to Citizens Advice Bureaux he is reducing the help they can provide? At least the debt advice service has been temporarily reprieved, lets face it they'll have their work cut out helping those in the public sector who have lost their jobs to help pay for the defecit. I think he fails to realise that in this present economic climate people just can't afford to continually give money to charities no matter how worthy they are.
Course he could always make all Public Sector jobs part time and work on the premise that if people have more spare time then they can volunteer more easily. The flaw in that plan is that most of them will desperately be trying to find another job to make up for the money lost in their pay packets.
Course he could always ask banks and big businesses who avoid paying their taxes to contribute as a means of deflecting public anger away from them.
Ironically when the Big Society does take to the streets to protest against job losses, bankers bonuses, business tax avoidence and student fees the govt is not happy. This is not Cambo's vision. If you are going to protest can you do it quietly and with minimum fuss please, it upsets him when you don't.
Complain about this comment
Ironically when the Big Society does take to the streets to protest against job losses, bankers bonuses, business tax avoidance and student fees the govt is not happy.
Ironically hyde park will be used on the 26 march for such an event 'STAY 4 ONE DAY! - Turn Hyde Park into Tahrir Square for 24 hours!'
It would seem that the good people of Egypt have sent ripples of discontent about the globe
Complain about this comment
My colleague came up with a new definition for Mr Cameron and his "Big Society".
It's "You do it, you pay for it cause we can't be bothered".
Complain about this comment
11. At 7:30pm on 11 Feb 2011, DontTrustTheGovernment wrote:
""Entitlement". Hah - don't make me laugh. I was recently made redundant. I have been in work for the last 26 years, paid all my taxes, national insurance. I'm now made to feel like a naughty schoolboy at the Job Centre for the princely sum of £64 a week which I will only get for 6 months. Tell me where empowerment and responsibility comes into that."
I'm sorry to hear you have been made redundant. It happened to me in 1993 so I can sympathise. Sorry too that you didn't enjoy your visit to the Job Centre. When my wife had to quit work through illness in 2008 she found our local Job Centre very sympathetic and helpful in her application for Incapacity Benefit. I guess some Job Centres are better than others.
The entitlement argument is similar to the human rights argument. I'm certainly in favour of everyone having their basic human rights respected but this has now evolved into a rights culture, where petty criminals/schoolchildren respond with an insolent "I know my rights" whenever a policeman/teacher attempts to correct their bad behaviour. Much better for the jailer to accept responsibility for ensuring the prisoner is treated humanely than for the prisoner to have to demand his rights (and to need some external body (ECHR anyone?) to ensure this happens).
Likewise, it is much healthier to have a society that readily accepts its responsibility to help people who become unemployed than one in which the unemployed have to insist on their "entitlement" to that help. That help should include local (yes, voluntary and community) action through self-help groups giving moral support and skills training etc, as well as financial support from the state. When you "paid all your taxes, national insurance", were you doing it so you could claim it back later or because it helped your fellow citizen in need?
You ask where where empowerment and responsibility comes into your current situation. Well, you used to spend 40 or so hours a week doing what your employer wanted you to do. Now you are empowered to decide. You can either spend the time in front of the telly with a can of lager (some people do) or do something more enterprising. From the tone of your various postings, I sense that you are a hard-working, self-reliant person who is unlikely to take the first option. Of course, you will need to spend some time looking for another job and we can all agree that JSA of £64pw is not a huge sum. Even so, how you choose to spend the rest of your time will say a lot about your character. I like to think, if I was made redundant again, I would want to give "society" some return for the assistance it was giving me. Yes, that could be voluntary work, either through some formal route or, say, helping an elderly neighbour keep her garden tidy.
Of course, if I am made redundant again, I might discover I'm really a lazy g*t who sends my wife out to work while I watch The Colditz Story on Yesterday (again). But I hope I'd behave more responsibly. This may seem rather patronising - I hope not - but you did ask where empowerment and responsibility comes in. Whatever the situation, it is always healthier to think about your responsibility to others rather than your entitlement to their help.
Complain about this comment
While all this fuss and nonsense is going on about the Big Society and Project Merlin a real coup d'etat is going on under the radar with the Finance Bill 2011, called by Monbiot "the heist of the century". Read a layman's explanation of it here:
One Sausage Too Many – stealing from the poor and giving to the rich
http://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/
Complain about this comment
vstrad "You ask where where empowerment and responsibility comes into your current situation."
Very true without work as such many people feel powerless and question the position they are left in, my advice to them is to take a look around at were they live so often its a straight drive through to work in our personal villages that exist in each of us. When i say personal villages im talking about, go out the front door hop in the car drive to the garage and then to work with a similar routine and scenery on the way home so we don't notice the actual world around our own front doors.
In most cases now re-employment will take a while so in the time in between is spent either in condolence for a life we had or spent building a new one. Try picking something you don't like about were you live and change it, build on it, make it something. We turned a building plot from a demolished house into a productive organic garden that serves several parts of the community. its about self empowerment.
Life gets better the less you expect from it and the more you put into it.
Complain about this comment
sturdyblog, they really do take us for muppets don't they. I dont think I've heard one member of the Public call for Britain to become more of a dodgy tax haven, but I suppose that wouldn't really bother an unelected Prime Minister, without a Mandate or a political party with no Manifesto.
Complain about this comment
DontTrustTheGovernment #11
I hope that life gets easier for you very soon,being made redundant is no
joke and being expected to survive on £64 a week is a huge worry.
However,vstrad #6 does make a valid point about a culture of entitlement
which has created resentment among those who do work and pay their taxes.
I mean of course those who have chosen not to work,not folk like you who
have worked and obviously are keen to gain employment again.
In my role in life (voluntary)I get to see many people but the best illustration of the entitlement culture I come across is a council estate
a few miles from me.Roughly 2/3 of the tenants work,the rest claiming
benefits.
One house has a family of four,mum and dad in their early forties and two
children.Dad has never worked,mum did part-time work many years ago,but
all four have the latest mobile phones,dad plus kids have new mountain
bikes and their TV also new is huge! They are all well dressed,have a car
and two enormous dogs to feed.Across the road from them is another couple
with a small child and another on the way.Now this bloke did have a job,
his first ever,courtesy of a neighbour who told him of a vacancy in the
factory where he works.This job didnt last long,after repeated verbal and
written warnings for being late he was sacked.His excuse? A 7.30am start
was "too early" for him!Along the road another couple who dont work.The
male has health problems,the female is fit but "dosnt fancy" working.Just
round the corner lives their daughter,single mum,two kids.Got herself
pregnant aged 16 by a young chap who was already a father to three other
children by two different mothers.He dosnt work,never has,pays no child
maintainance.I could go on but......
From time to time someone gets rather angry about this state of affairs
and the word goes round that "somebody has dobbed us in".Any boyfriends
are swiftly told to make themself scarce,all cash in hand jobs promptly
stopped.After 2 or 3 weeks it all goes on as before.
This is not in a deprived part of Britain,there are still jobs to be had
albeit in smaller numbers than 2 or 3 years ago,and this culture of
entitlement must be tackled somehow.I grow weary of hearing "the council
should" or "the government should" from those who have put nothing in but
are ever ready to take,and to take as much as they can get away with.
Complain about this comment
I don't want to hear one more over-privaliged rich boy telling us we should be living on less.
My local council is now umming and ahhhhing about a modest grant for some modifications to our house in order that our severely disabled daughter will be able to
a. get in and out of the house...
b. have a shower...
If these are refused on grounds of cost, we will have to consider moving house.
Should this come to pass, Cameron D. will be hearing about it personally from me and I will be aiming to embarrass him as much as I can.
He should understand that carers of disabled children are under enough stress to begin with and a prolonged battle with a cash strapped council is the last thing we need......but oh yes....of course.....he's never had to worry about money, so that wouldn't be a consideration now would it ......no, of course not.
How could I be so stupid........
To think that I may have expected anything different........stupid stupid stupid.Hahahahahaha......
Complain about this comment
Further to my previous post, there is another important consideration is being over-looked in the debate about provision for those that need it.
This really revolves around the concepts of basic humans rights, available to those that have a need, without ambiguity.
Let me give you some examples. Our young daughter is severely disabled. She requires help 24/7 and as such we have both had to give up working to provide this care. As you can imagine our income has dropped dramatically but this you can adjust to and we actually wouldn't be able to spend as much as we used to anyway as we are unable to go on holiday or go out for meals etc, so you lower your expectations accordingly and just get on with what needs to be done.
The problems arise when, for instance, she now has the need for a special bed, which amounts to an adult sized cot.
You may be surprised to hear that this is NOT provided for in any capacity by either the NHS or Local Authority, a person over the age of 18 would be catered for but strangely, not children.
So as a result we have had to apply for funding from a Local Charity and we are waiting to hear the outcome.
This has been the situation for years now and whilst the work of the charities is obviously wonderful,[and it appears, essential] this strange system of charities funding such equipment has led to the manafacturing companies being able to charge almost what they like, as they know it's essential kit and that the charities will stump up for it.
The bed will cost ITRO £9,000 and a car seat which has a swivel base screwed onto it is £1,500.
Both of these items are hugely overpriced and the effect is the private buyer is discouraged from shelling out.
If they were properly priced, I would consider bypassing the charity and buying them myself.
And this is at the crux of the point I am making, there is the sovereignty of the person receiving the help to be considered, surely they are the most important part of the discussion and just as an old person might want to retain their independence and stay in their own home, so people that require genuine help should not be made to feel that they are constantly accepting the charity of others.
I feel that it is obvious that the rich members of the Tory cabinet do not even begin to grasp this concept because they have NEVER had to worry about money and as such would simply have no understanding of these concerns.
When Camerons young son died, I was surprised that I felt some empathy with a Tory [as a fellow human, I did feel sad for his loss] but it now seems that as we see services and provisions for our daughter quickly eroding, my feelings were misplaced.
As I said earlier, I should have expected nothing more, it's no surprise.
Complain about this comment
"Rescuing Cameron's vision of the Big Society" is the title of Mark Easton's blog.
Mark Easton mentions the National Lottery. What he fails to point out is that the the Canadian Teachers Union owns most of it?
As for the terminology - the Big Society - that was dreamed up by Andy Coulson? Now the Prime Minister has an ex employee of the BBC as Director of Communications who is responsible for slashing and burning the BBC World Service programing. The various, overpaid Trustees of the BBC, will also be burning and slashing down Radio 4?
Jeremy Hunt has 'gorn' to ground recently - hoping that the American who is running down the BBC and all it's talents in the name of BBC must be relocated at any cost - will rejoice at the backlash - and another excuse for Murdoch and his friends in government and those within the BBC?
Carrion can emit odours for miles around for scavengers - it only takes one cut from a predator to start that process?
Complain about this comment
Big Society baffles brains.
Complain about this comment
From their very first Policy announcement, the badly thought through and ineptly presented cuts to Child Benefit,this administration has done nothing to inspire any confidence whatsoever.
It would seem that apart from the dubious principals of many of the policies, the planning and execution appear to have been thrown together by people that are either incompetent or just assume they are above any serious consideration of the situations in question.
Eton boys are trained from an early age to believe they are "natural leaders", that they a merely inheriting a birth right and that they are among the chosen few.
Intelligence, empathy for their fellow men, social awareness, these qualities do not enter into the equation.
This behaviour could be gotten away with a century ago, I hope that it will not be tolerated in any such way today.
Our present cabinet is so far removed from the real world, from the pressures, fears, worries and concerns that directly affect 99% of the populous, that their lack of knowledge and understanding literally makes them unqualified to represent the people.
The Tories idea of Society stretches no further than their own from door, believe me.
In short, they are unfit for purpose.
Complain about this comment
Endgames #40.
"..the concepts of basic humans rights, available to those that have a need, without ambiguity."
your (our) misfortune is that in spite of our recent past, the establishment here (UK) and in many other parts of the 'free' world are still beholden to the ideas/ideology of Sir Francis Galton. (note the 'Sir' ;))
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay6text.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Eugenics_Society
as an example: to this day many public buildings remain inaccessible to wheelchair users, even though the law mandates equality.
http://www.aboutequalopportunities.co.uk/disability-discrimination-and-the-law.html
Complain about this comment
jr4412 @44
I think your observations are valid and that as resources become scarce and as over-population becomes a real and threatening global problem, Eugenics may rear it's ugly head in not only intellectual circles but also political.
I'm sure you have heard the starving in Africa referred to as "useless eaters"......this offhand term says a lot about the minds that came up with it.
Complain about this comment
Boilerbill @ 25 quote
"I have two major concerns about a the Big Society. They are not mortal blows, but they do need to be addressed. It is good that people are concerned about local issues, but the length of their involvement is a matter of concern. Many charities experience a high turnover of volunteers with a few people remaining as stabilisers. This may have consequences to long term planning. "
My concerns exactly, it's good to hear it coming from someone with some experience of the situation, again I fear the Tories are either to arrogant or too stupid to see this argument.
Complain about this comment
This is a project which is so vast and covers the whole spectrum of society it cannot and is not being explained in a coherent way.
Perhaps they could start by explaining to everyone why we have such a huge structural deficit and how it came about. What will happen if it isn't tackled and what the IMF would propose instead.
It isn't good enough for Ken Clarke to state that the economy is in a catastrophic state and the middle classes don't get it. How can they 'get it' if they don't understand how it got there in the first place and why money continues to be borrowed at such an alarming rate and where it goes.
Once they make that clear then people may realise that the big society has to become a reality for 'nanny' was over paid by many billions of pounds and has had to be 'fired'. Now they will have to do the organising for themselves.
Instead of lumping every aspect of such a complicated variation of changes into something no one can grasp it is time to separate cooperatives mutuals voluntary organisations philanthropy and Uncle Tom Cobley and all into packages that individuals can better understand so they can decide how and where they are best able to make a contribution.
It has probably come as a shock to most that many of the so called charitable institutions have been given billions of pounds from the taxpayer without them being aware and would welcome that the money they get will now have to be bid for not be frittered away on marketing agencies and administrators.
No wonder we are hearing howls of protest from some of the charity organisers themselves for if charities are opened up to more scrutiny what cans of worms will be uncovered.
The big society is a grand idea but the way it has been put over is dull and disappointing. It now needs a good professional to grasp it and run with it.
Complain about this comment
The justification for the spending cuts is that the UK is borrowing £110 Bn, i.e. 10% of GDP.
Most of this debt represents the cost of bailing out the banks - but we own a large slice of these banks which is now worth $85 Bn - and later this month they are forecast to produce £24 Bn of profits.
Question: do you only look at someone's borrowing, or is the right way to assess their situation to look at their assets too? YES - we owe a lot - BUT we also own a lot - YES the cost of this borrowing is high BUT we are also getting billions of income from the asset we own - indeed we're getting a better rate of return and capital growth than it is costing us in interest.
I agree we cannot "deny the deficit" but neither should we "deny the asset". Indeed the shares could be sold and the money used to pay off the debt - taking UK borrowing to just 5% of GDP ONE OF THE LOWEST DEBT LEVELS IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD.
So do we honestly believe the deep and rapid spending cuts are essential because of our level of debt?
If not, is Cameron right anyway that big government is a bad thing and therefore that his big society is the only answer?
We live in a democracy - we vote for local authorities and hold them accountable at the box - they may not be perfect and we may be fairly bad at voting or participating, BUT we can produce change in our communities through the electoral system.
In the Big society, those controlling community activities are self-selecting and unaccountable to anyone - in the Big Society, those with the money and the time will call the shots.
Therefore the Big Society is profoundly anti-democratic - it seeks to replace locally elected representatives with a new class of philanthropist do-gooders who will be free to exercise their prejudices and their priorities and simply ignore the wishes of the rest of us.
Therefore the Big society isn't a fig leaf for cuts - it is based on a deliberate lie about the country's financial position, it is a direct attack on democracy and it takes the UK back to the Victorian era of power in local communities residing in the hands of the rich.
It's the sort of change you would expect to see after a coup d'etat.
Complain about this comment
virtualsilverlady @ 47......
"Once they make that clear then people may realise that the big society has to become a reality for 'nanny' was over paid by many billions of pounds and has had to be 'fired'. Now they will have to do the organising for themselves."
Who, exactly, are the "they" you refer to at the end of your statement?
You also infer in your opening paragraph that the concept is so grand and complex that we are having trouble grasping it in it's glorious completeness.....
Don't worry.....I've grasped it alright.....
The reason a caring state has been evolved over the years is that we are an evolving, civilised and caring people, gradually realising what should come first in life......people.
Without this at the basis of our society, we lose our human soul.
But that sounds like rhetoric as well and what, in the real world is needed to care for people is resources, no way around it.
A further example of the dubious nature of the Tory activities, was the cap put on the number of immigrants from outside the E.U.,which was quickly ruled illegal by the British Courts and overturned.
This was bought about by the Care industry who were suddenly finding themselves understaffed due to the fact that there just are not enough qualified staff available within the E.U.
Once again, this was either a badly thought through and carelessly executed policy or it was done with the knowledge of the damage it would cause and pushed through anyway for idealogical reasons.
Take your pick.......neither is a satisfactory explanation.
The law, I will add, is still due to change and the cap will return in the middle of this year, the Care Industry are still arguing for some sanity.
Episodes like this point to either a lack of comprehension or organisation and leave me little doubt that the implementation of the Big Society will be equally as incompetent.
I have seen little evidence to the contrary.
Complain about this comment
Richard Bunning @ 48
"Therefore the Big Society is profoundly anti-democratic - it seeks to replace locally elected representatives with a new class of philanthropist do-gooders who will be free to exercise their prejudices and their priorities and simply ignore the wishes of the rest of us."
"Therefore the Big society isn't a fig leaf for cuts - it is based on a deliberate lie about the country's financial position, it is a direct attack on democracy and it takes the UK back to the Victorian era of power in local communities residing in the hands of the rich."
Very well said sir........in total agreement with you......it's actually sinister in concept.
Complain about this comment
This is what you get when you have an era of good fortune, This was expected from Conservatives. Elite class does not know how other people actually live in a Society, and, Conservatives track record has never been good...
Complain about this comment
The Big Society only resonates inside the 'Westminster bubble', out in the real world though we can all see it for what it really is.
Government funding for our public services will be cut and in its place instead of a 'volunteer army' stepping up to do it all for free, what will happen is that those who can afford to pay will be forced to buy the services from the private companies that spring up, and those that can't afford to pay will have to fall back on charity or go without.
Who can afford a dentist these days? When the NHS cut funding to dentists back in the 80's did they all start doing it for nothing? For charity? No.
Today if you can afford a dentist you pay through the nose for it. If you can't then you have to live with bad teeth. I can see how that is great for dentists but how is it better for the rest of us?
This is the fate for all our public services. Why should a librarian do their job for nothing? How long will it be before you have to pay to use the library, or any other of our now free at the point of use services?
The Big Society will be this governments Poll Tax.
Complain about this comment
Richard Bunning #48.
(Endgames)
"..Big Society is profoundly anti-democratic.."
Mr Cameron's latest statement would back that up.
"Let me make one thing absolutely clear: I'm not going to back down from what I believe in just because of a few bad headlines."
all about his beliefs (just like Tony Blair). shame that belief counts for more than evidence when our 'leaders' make policy.
I think the following (old) Chinese proverb is particularly appropriate here:
A closed mind is like a closed book, just a block of wood.
Complain about this comment
cameron claimed that people had "become incapable of taking their own decisions and taking responsibility for their lives".
Ever since I was 17 I have had to make decisions and take responsibility for those decisions, it's a part of being an adult and living in the real world, maybe cameron should try it before he puts us all down as irresponsible scroungers, which he is.
This feckless society sham, scam I mean cameron talks of exists mainly in the minds of certain media editors and politicians, in reality most adults are hard working (given the jobs) and would rather support themselves.
How dare cameron talk of taking responsibility. He has handed over NHS responsibility to GPs cuts to local service responsibilities to local councils and now protecting the weak and vulnerable to any one who will look after them for free.
This is a sham, a scam.
Complain about this comment
The coalition point to large sums of money that charities will be able to get by bidding for central government contracts for things like taking over the DWP's Job Centre service, etc.
As a community service volunteer in the 1970s, I worked for a homeless charity in the North East that ran night shelters. Times were hard - and this charity was responsible for providing a bed for the night for the homeless. I got £2.30 per week plus food - the men got soup and a bed - I was 16 and every week we had to cope with finding half a dozen dead in their beds - they all had lice - many were mentally ill - most alcoholics too - ex servicemen suffering from PTSS.
A month or so after I left a scandal errupted - one of the principals in the charity had been creaming off thousands of pounds every month into his bank account, money given by individuals, government and councils to provide heating, food and staff to run the homeless service - he quite rightly went went to jail - whilst the homeless men suffered.
Next project - a home for kids with learning disabilities - also a charity. The staff are a bit subdued when I arrived - there is no boss anymore - he's left suddenly -reason - he had been caught sexually abusing the children.
Spool forward a few years - I'm now a paramedic in W. London - its the rugby season and a charity ambulance comes hurtling towards the local hospital with a minor injury patient - and runs over and kills an old lady on a crossing - the patient in the back of the ambulance has a sprained ankle - but they felt it OK to drive @ 80 mph on blue lights and sirens - and killed someone doing so.
The point of these stories? Charities do a lot of great work - but we need professionals for many things - we need accountability - we need quality and reliable services.
CHARITY IS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE TO A DECENT SOCIETY WHERE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT - they are a valuable additional and alternative way to support statutory services.
David Cameron thinks he is right about this, but as someone comin from the priviledged Eton background he has enjoyed, he as no idea of what goes on in the real world and the fact that he has allowed finance for the voluntary sector he wants to expand to be slashed through local authority & government spending cuts proves that he has no understanding of how it works.
To now pump money into charities and expect them to be competent, efficient and provide value for money is a baseless policy driven by dogma "private=good, public=bad" - as my personal experience above shows, this is a dangerous delusion. It is a fraudsters charter - an incompetent's license and a perverts delight to allow them to pray on the weakest members of society.
As with all ideologues, Cameron's beliefs are borne out of prejudice and bigotry, he sounds like a 19th century pit owner patronising the "deserving poor" with complete contempt for the democratically elected representatives of local communities.
Complain about this comment
49. At 6:50pm on 13 Feb 2011, Endgames wrote:
.....the Care industry who were suddenly finding themselves understaffed due to the fact that there just are not enough qualified staff available within the E.U.
......The law, I will add, is still due to change and the cap will return in the middle of this year, the Care Industry are still arguing for some sanity.
--------------------------------------------
Part of the real insanity here, as with many other areas of business, is the abdication of responsibility of the business owners themselves to fund the training of the local staff they need. Why should the state pay for the training when private providers make the profits? The ultimate conclusion is that no education will happen here as we can bring in people from elsewhere on the cheap.
Complain about this comment
"The official figures from the Department for Communities and Local Government for England (not including the rest of the UK) are that on average 498 people sleep rough each night." wiki...
The truth is the Government hasn't a clue. I know of at least 20 homeless in my town alone, that's not including all those sofa surfers. Cameron talks of responsibility, during Thatchers purge of the North, divorce rates rocketed and illegitimate births rose, is Camerons party going to take responsibility for helping break British society, or is he just going to blame us for it.
Complain about this comment
This is an interesting map in the making set up by groups that are involved in voluntary sectors to track the cuts across the UK
http://voluntarysectorcuts.org.uk/cuts-map/
Complain about this comment
Kit Green @ 56
"Part of the real insanity here, as with many other areas of business, is the abdication of responsibility of the business owners themselves to fund the training of the local staff they need. Why should the state pay for the training when private providers make the profits? The ultimate conclusion is that no education will happen here as we can bring in people from elsewhere on the cheap. "
I agree, it poses the question of the Private Health sector in this country making use of staff trained up by the NHS and making no contribution whatsoever.
It is estimated that the average cost to train up a Doctor is £500,000 paid for from Public Funds, it's nigh time the Private Sector made a contribution to this if they are to benifit from it.
On the subject of Care Staff, I would predict that the Immigration cap will be re-introduced and to get around the shortage of qualified staff the Tories will simply lower the standard of skill required to take up these posts, thereby short-changing the recipients of the care.
I hope I'm wrong.
Complain about this comment
Richard Bunning @ 55
"As with all ideologues, Cameron's beliefs are borne out of prejudice and bigotry, he sounds like a 19th century pit owner patronising the "deserving poor" with complete contempt for the democratically elected representatives of local communities."
I agree.......now Cameron is saying "This is My Mission"....so he thinks we should all be subject to his "Mission"
does he ......?
Are we really stuck with these buffoons for the next 5 years...?
Complain about this comment
Endgames & Kit Green, No worries, all will be fine. The gov. have removed(ing) the requirements for care providers to have a certain amount of NVQ team staff trained at level 2 standard and and team leaders to be trained at level 3 NVQ in care homes, and also stopped requirements for part-timers to have to go through the CRB 'ordeal', So now any un-qualified ne'er-do-well can look after the weak and vulnerable. Though if having the best, most professional and suitable people looking after some of the most vulnerable people in society is important to you, then you may be in for a shock.
Complain about this comment
Just watched the Nick interview with Cameron cut executive pay etc to make changes.......
What world does he live in? what council leaders are going to reduce their own pay, most have taken increases due to the extra work load of (piles of)BS this Mission has created.
Maybe if this is his plan then everyone who earns over 200k in government/pubic services should be made to fund up to 3 community groups if they refuse to take a pay cut same with big charities etc were top execs are overpaid.
If people like me can afford to pay for the little things needed to run these groups ink's stationary etc out of our benefits them I'm quite sure many millionaire's can afford to support many groups across the whole of society.
Complain about this comment
62. At 1:49pm on 14 Feb 2011, John Ellis
Pick an individual and 'out' their pay seems to have become a standard diversionary tactic for the tories.
As an example the chief exec at Leeds council took a pay cut, he earns c. £150 thousand - his council faces tory cuts of £150 million.
Basically if he worked for free (seems to be the tory ideal for everyone except themselves and their city chums) the loss of his whole wage would 0.1% of what the council have to cut from services. The council has a total expenditure of £2.7 billion, so his cost is less than one millionth of the total budget.
Just like the 'big society' fiasco: an irrelevant attempt at a smoke screen.
Complain about this comment
jon112dk
So true jon each and every day we will hear a new excuse of why it will work what must be done to make it work but without forced sanctions on those that control the money we are just going to keep sliding backwards.
Once we have cut society back to a point were it can just about survive we will find the less desirable money appearing on the streets to run our services.
Complain about this comment
Yes Big Society = BS.
Dave it is dead - move on. Failure to leave BS to die will find it hanging around your neck like an albatros with a similar smell.
BS is now intrinsically seen as a veil of sincerity invoked as cover for the cuts.
Complain about this comment
Well while were all having a rant about how bleak things are this is a rather good addition to sociaty maybe not ours but for third world its fantastic. I would also imagine it would bring about economic reveloutions all over the third world. Think dave could by the UK one then we can all have free internet huge public savings dont you think.?
http://buythissatellite.org/about.php
BS has so many acronym's my favouret is bespoke ;)
Complain about this comment
Mark, regarding your piece on tonight's 10 o'clock news, I wouldn't take Greenwich Leisure's success at face value, certainly in terms of it being a "social enterprise". You might want to talk to the unions in the other London boroughs where they have taken over running the leisure centres, about the way they evaded their TUPE obligations to the existing staff, often by making wholescale redundancies, and then taking on new staff on worse terms and conditions.
If they are the "poster boy" for The Big Society, then we're all screwed.
Complain about this comment
Maggie is/was a great fan of Victorian values, and no doubt worshipped the very ground in which the philanthropic liberals of the time were created. But she also knew that before you can have Victorian values you must return to Victorian social structures. A certain young Cameron seems to have been giving his brain cell total immersion in her every word.
Complain about this comment
John...FREE internet access, I could imagine the look on camerons face...
yeah many acronyms...BS...
Backspace
Backside
Bristol
Brittany Spears
Bomb Squad
Backstab
Big Smoke
Blazin'squad
Complain about this comment
Try this link
www.dandrader.com/Citigroup_Revisiting_Plutonomy.pdf
It is a paper said to be produced by Citigroup entitled 'The Rich Getting Richer'. Some Big Society!
To be fair to the writers they say that they consider that this is what IS happening and do not imply it should or should not happen. But Citigroup should know about these things.
Complain about this comment
Dear Dave.... I don't think they're buying it.
Personally I think it is a great idea though. I am thrilled by the prospect of these united and empowered communities of your Big Society. I think it is just what Britain needs. I'm sure you WILL see communities coming together and taking the initiative and the responsibility for change.
Indeed, I fully expect that your 'Big Society' will have a Big March down to your Big House and give you a Big Lesson in the real power of community spirit.
For far too long politicians have been tiptoeing around the house, observing the cautionary signs... "Do not frighten the sheep". So I congratulate you for climbing in there with your smouldering rags and starting a stampede.
'bout time... I, for one, was getting tired of the bleating.
P.S. Oh, Dave, before I forget... I'm going to be in London on Saturday 26th of March with a bunch of friends, we might drop by and see you.
Complain about this comment
Dave's quote of the day at the begining of the interview...
" I Dont CARE "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00yqh42/BBC_News_at_Six_14_02_2011/
Complain about this comment
"Still Cameron drones on with that rosy-cheeked, Look-Master-Geppetto-I’m-A-Real-Boy! expression: “in my own constituency, for example, there is a proposal to buy the local village pub”. Hold on – I think he’s on to something. This could be a winner where I live, in Bermondsey. True, banding together and buying The Ancient Foresters will not do anything to replace the hundreds of front-line services which are being cut, but perhaps we will all be too drunk to notice."
Read the rest of my article here:
Already tired of Cameron's BS
Complain about this comment
Where is and what would be the contribution of the employers to that "Big Society"?
From all what I´ve read about that, even on the website of No. 10 and the Conservative Party, the employers are spared out and no demands towards them to pay their employees wages on which they can live and so wouldn´t be in need to take benefits.
The more I read about the "Big Society" the more I get the impression that this is a scheme for getting less efforts by the government and many more cheap workers. Wait for the time when he´ll come up with £1-jobs, of course for the sake of building the "Big Society".
Complain about this comment
Mark Easton.
"..the PM reaffirming his commitment to replacing Britain's "broken society" with a "Big Society"."
if only Mr Cameron watched Channel4 News. today's told me about 90 food banks already in operation, and a further 400+ to come online this year; the reporter informs me that half of all households in poverty have at least one income. broken Britain -- indeed.
Complain about this comment
The fundimental problem with the Big Society idea is the DC belief that significantly more people want to engage in active participation in doing stuff for themselves and others. LOL. This is a cultural problem not a project.
DC has apparently been listening to the talk from people who say they want to be involved (ie in decision making). He needs to be there when the unpaid jobs and tasks are proposed to be handed out.
There are also many tasks and decisons which cannot be delegated out in a society dominated by health and safety issues and liabilities. The range of issues is vast - for example the church which has unauthorised portland cement applied to stonework pointing (following significant ad lib fund raising) which then has to be removed as lime mortar has to be used to avoid deterioration of the stone.
These issues are everywhere and the proper advice has to be given by somebody who knows the subject. Otherwise we are back in medieval times and technology levels and there is no point in having specialists. Presumably specialists exist because there is proven need, otherwise why pay more.
The other principal plank in the Big Society I would suggest is the idea that service provision decisons - mainly the type that need a NO answer - (because saying yes is easy) are delegated downwards so policy is not fragmented and thrown off course by lobby groups - as frequently seen on the issue of the availability of drugs and NICE. However this requires people to take responsibility for decisions and to have the capability to objectively assess the criteria for the decision.
So it aint gonna work DC. Nice idea but horrendus to implement.
Complain about this comment
Cameron's "Big Society" is nothing more than a rebranding of the Workhouse. Those that can afford the services that they need will pay. Those that cannot will have to rely on charities and whatever funding they can get. I just wish he would be honest and just admit he and his cronies, are going to screw everything into the ground.
Complain about this comment
I wonder if this has been thought through, should the "Big Society" actually work it will then throw up the question "if we can do these things on our own, why are we paying for all the Politicians"?
Come to think of it maybe thats good reason to make sure BS works!
Complain about this comment
John Ellis #72.
"Dave's quote of the day at the begining of the interview... "I Dont CARE""
even the banksters appear to have had enough BS from Mr Cameron, just heard that emigration (financial types) to Switzerland is up by 28% (on year before).
at least they've the money ;-(
Complain about this comment
1) Encouraging social and voluntary action
= getting things done on the cheap so that fat cats can be taxed even less.
2) Decentralising power
= yeah right, and when did the tories ever believe in decentralising power. Tories have never believed in home rule for Scotland, frankly their treatment of Scotland resembles that of the African countries by the tories beloved empire.
3) Reforming public services
= culling public services and those who are dependent on these services can go to charities.
Two things are certain in life, one is death, the other is you can not trust the tories!
C McK
Complain about this comment
Do they really think we are all stupid? The decentralisation card is played by all Governments when they are in deficet, in times of plenty they recentralise all the funding and abandon all those who step up to the plate.
Time for them to realise that people vote to elect people to take responsibility, not pass the buck.
Complain about this comment
The Big Society is about mobilising patriotism and generating community spirit across the nation where people get together and try to solve problems within their own communities and within the nation.
One brilliant example is Childen In Need where communities big and small up and down the country lay on fund raising events to raise money for the children of the nation.Comic Relief and Band-Aid were other examples of getting people behind a good cause.
Unfortunately, what David Cameron seems to forget is that Big Society events like that take organisation and planning i.e. the practical bits not the idealogical, abstract, conceptual aspects that he keeps spouting on about.
His whole strategy seems to be social development by expectation rather than development by strategic planning, a major weakness of all the political parties.He expects industry to pick up the slack and take on the people he made redundant from the public sector but has no published plan for how they are going to do it.He wants to develop the Big Society but again does not come forward with a plan as to how this might be achieved.
To make matters worse he is asking for people to get involved in this Big Society at a time when many people are now more focused on the negative impact of the cuts that his government have made, which demonstrates that what they have is a set of supposedly good ideas but no coherent plan holding them together as often one part of his strategy impacts negatively on another.
Can I suggest that David Cameron gets together with the BBC and draws up a set of clear objectives which highlight aspects of the Big Society i.e. sets out what he wants people to fix and uses the organising power of the BBC to set up nationwide events to which volunteers can sign up bearing in mind the austere financial times in which we find ourselves and the restricted financial circumstances in which people live.
You can improve things in society with very little cost but you do have to have a clear, strategic plan and a good cause that people can give their support too. It helps too that ordinary people see that public leaders are personally committed and do not mind getting their hands really dirty in a good cause.
It is clearly a case where the people want more substance and action from government and considerably less image and talking.
Complain about this comment
Interesting comments on BS from some people who already do a lot of community work.
A church group who are currently very active - fund raising, activity groups for kids, schemes for old folk etc etc.
What did they think of BS?
Volunteering is good. Volunteering in the context of BS, they had real reservations. Doing work for free if that then supports making someone else unemployed and putting their family in poverty is not ethical they thought.
That's people who volunteer, basically every week they do something - but they have ethical objections about putting people out of work.
BS is dead.
Complain about this comment
The Big Society is a great idea and the Victorians, much beloved of Thatcher, did it so well. I'm sure we''l get back to those good old days when Britain was truly great and we'll have vagrancy and poor laws and workhouses back again. And everybody will make money and be happy - except the poor of course, but then who cares about the poor? Not Tories, now or ever.
Complain about this comment
You know what?
I cannot say this better than you have yourself; so, I will quote you:
"But, essentially, Mr Cameron will do what he can to try to spike the argument that the Big Society is simply about telling people they must provide services for nothing that the state used to provide for free."
I believe Cameron's Big Society (with the little bank account) will flop and flop miserably.
Complain about this comment
Well this big society is wild as the wind with out foundation. As all the Conserative idea's are as wild as first policies. The idea of this is another stupid idea because Policie's are always new one's not one's that can be tweeked to improve any of them.
Like all the selling ideas are as limp wristed as our supposed leaders. Out to make a pound at the public's expense or millions for there own pockets. Trust is something I have for I others need to prove it.
All our Industries have been sold off since World War II because the States have blackmailed us for our Technology and Scientist. Sold us inferior goods like Aircraft and let our Polictians ripe up our modern one's. Yet Roosvelt blackmailed Canada to destroy there Mach 3 Aircraft; developed by De-Havilland,then offered to take there Scientist other jobs at NASA as a further bribe.Check your history all you Boffins an so Brain boxes.
Now look to troubles in the Middle East will soon spread to Europe as our price's rise and less in our pockets. Now all the News is telling it now but I could told you 3/4 months ago that it would happen. Are you News people a little dumb as when VAT goes up so does everything we eat,wear,travel etc. Need I go on Dummies!!!!!????
Complain about this comment
What happened to freedom of speech!!!!
Complain about this comment
its just wind and sound that bites.
Complain about this comment
Just read about David Cameron's vision for an open public services society i.e. the privation of many public sector areas.
Given that the state is not well known for either its ability to set out tough regulations when dealing with private finance initiatives and seems to be even less able to monitor and control their implementation effectively this does seem like an unwise move.
We seem to be moving from a state that operates to a standard to one where we operate to a price.If we continue along this route before long we will not need MPs as most of our public decisions will be made by private industry.
David Cameron talks about not yielding more control to Brussels but happily sells it on to private companies ( not necessarily British) in the form of public service contracts just so he can relieve the pressure on the public purse.
We may get these services free initially but given that we never get to know the terms and conditions of these contracts and desperate government administrations often offer an incentive to encourage some company to take on the contract,it can't be guaranteed that this will always be the case.Nor can we be guaranteed the same protection that is present at the moment if things go wrong as all relevant information will be in private not public hands.
It does seem that the drive to eliminate the deficit is at a price that common sense dictates is too high i.e. the control of the country by private companies, the banks being a prime example rather than by an elected government.
It will be interesting to see if David Cameron's vision survives to its second term, but judging by the small degree of take-up this seems unlikely.
Complain about this comment
Big society is simply a cover for a purely ideological ploy to restore the country to Victorian times.
Many of the public services that are to be handed over to charities, originated in the work of charities, examples are education, libraries, art galleries, health services, museums, social housing etc. Philanthropists and charities made these available to the general public, but the cover was patchy, and inevitably could not be provided for all. Reformers, such as Charles Dickens, highlighted the problems these caused for society, and shamed the government into providing them from the public purse.
Now, we are to revert to the Victorian model, but, we are assured, the government will finance the charities to do the work. Wonderful, it will cost the same, but we will have to do the work, without pay. However, can we rely on the government continuing to fund it? Well, at present, the government intends to pay for it by using the money in dormant bank accounts. This money does not belong to the government, it belongs to members of the public. I for instance, have two so called dormant bank accounts, but it would cost me more in time and effort to reclaim them than is in the accounts, due to the complexities involved in terms of paperwork etc. The accounts were declared dormant, without any attempt to notify me of the intention to do so. The government using this money to fund charities amounts to theft, but more worrying is what will happen when this stolen money runs out?
What will happen if the government decides it can no longer afford to fund the charities?
The answer is simple, the service will no longer be available.
An inevitable consequence of handing these services over to charities, will be the so called post code lottery. Different areas will have different degrees of success in maintaining the services, and also different priorities within the service.
The decisions needed to run the service will be made by the Trustees, and it depends upon the constitution of the charity as to how the trustees are selected, and thus to whom they are accountable will vary, but at best it will be members of the charity, so there will have to be membership fees. These membership fees will be part of the financing of the charity, and will almost certainly increase to the point where many will not be able to afford to be members of every charity that they need to, in order to have a say in the running of things.
Trustees have legal responsibility for the actions of the charity, and are liable for any debts or financial liabilities of the charity, so those without wealth are less likely to take on the post of trustee.
The consequence is that it will fall over time, to the rich to run these charities, and we will be back to Victorian society, where the poor have to beg for education, housing, health services, etc. They will have to prove that they are deserving cases, and as demand will outstrip supply, lo and behold, power returns to the rich and powerful, and the feckless mob will have to start tugging their forelocks whenever they meet their betters. Once again, Britain will be Great, ( or should that be Big Britain ),where the populace know their place, and show proper respect for their superiors.
One wonders how long it will be before the Tories will turn their attention to the wretched electorate that cause them so much trouble and inconvenience by demanding services and having the temerity to object to some of their policies, after all if they revoked the vote for women, and also for all those that do not own property, they could ensure that they will be in power forever.
So what are we waiting for, bring on the Big Society with all it's Victorian trappings, reinstate workhouses for the feckless work shy masses, bring back the debtors prisons, lets have deportation for all crimes such as theft - after all we still have a few overseas territories such as the Falklands. Reinstate the death penalty, complete with public hangings, which will provide both public entertainment and deterrence of crime.
Oh yes, I love the idea of the Big Society.
Complain about this comment
I don’t understand Big Society, especially since the UKGov doesn’t want to fund it or support it. I do understand the idea of a caring society, where we all, including UKGov, accept our obligations. In the end, the most economical way is to give the best help to all our people. I also understand the idea of a listening government that accepts that when most of society is shouting that student fees are crazy, it might be worth taking notice.
I am privileged. That’s because I was born in the early 1950s in a generation that probably met fewer ‘glass ceilings’ than any, before or since. At the same time, I’ve seen successive UKGovs, of every colour, do everything to destroy so many good things. Though I’m comfortably off, I resent paying taxes that are used to subsidise bankers’ bonuses and by foreign weapons. Though I’m not in favour of war, at least, if they bought British weapons, the money goes into our economy! I’m against waste, but don’t see the point in trying to manage budgets to death. If the cost of the NHS is doctors, nurses, equipment and buildings, what is the point of adding the cost of a load of managers and administrators to monitor it? And the cost of medicine includes what the patients spend to travel miles and wait for ages in order to receive treatment. Are politicians so stupid?
If Big Society meant UKGov understanding that how it spends its (well actually our, but anyway) money makes a Big difference to our Society, then I might understand Big Society.
Complain about this comment
I have just seen a guardian article which demonstrates a typical Tory snobbery showing just how removed from society these old gentry aristocrats can be!! http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/28/westminster-council-soup-run-ban
The Westminster council is proposing a ban on Soap Runs around the Catherdral as it attracts the homeless to 'congregate in the area'.
This is all well and good, and yes it may well have an effect on local residents, but the problem surely is how to accommodate these people and not by removing what little help they are provided!! So they now want to CRIMINALISE and degrade these people further!? This will only add to their suffering.
These Tory snobs have had the fortune to be born with silver spoons in their mouths and no hardship in life to speak of. And as long as they cannot relate to these peoples' situation they will never be able to embrace the idea of the 'Big Society', and will therefore simply remain a tactic to gain middle ground votes.
This is the 'Big Society'...can they not see that!? No they can not. Take from the poor what little they have and give nothing to the people that have nothing to give.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS