Big Society?

Cameron's big society is a clever way of putting an ideological framework around necessary public sector cuts and giving it positive spin?

PMSL at Guardian comment:
"What if nobody volunteers?"

Reminds me of the PTA in Japan. If you're not one of the first to put your hand up to 'volunteer' you end up being the one "volunteering" to clean the toilets, coz all best 'voluntary' jobs get snapped up early on.

Okay, I disagree.'Big Society' sounds like a Big Con to get people to do the state's work for free.

longfingernails I really liked your post. NOt sure which parts of it I agree with, or not, but lots of food for thought.

PMSL

And you know what

I have that farking tool box (albeit a pink one with glittery handles) and open it often

Yet they're still gonna mess with my son's DLA

So it's still put in but don't take out

That's not a toolbox it's a receiving unit

A blue one with dark shadowy patterns and an old school tie

It's a toolbox. You have to put the words together usong the tools to make the sentences yourself. Voluntarily. Not a nanny state in which the government should be expected to create meaningful sentences for you.

"Our aim is to not only create the largest co-operative or mutual in Britain, but to create a mutual that is Britain. Every citizen can be a shareholder, contribute, receive help and rewards.

The Network is, above all, practical. It?s an enormous tool-box of advice, case histories, links to people and resources, using the power of the Internet, Mobiles and face-to-face action."

Well I looked at the Big Society website, but I can't work out whether the words I found on the site are supposed to form sentences, or if they were produced by a random text generator.

It was on the radio unfortunately Riven - I would have loved to see him squirm

I take it Callmedave hasn't been back for a follow-up visit to you?

Oh fab question about volunteering!

Cheeky buggers: Do as I say not as I do (becuase I'll be down the Commons bar snaffling hugely on expenses)

I'll remember that next time they do a diatribe on benefits claimsants and I'm sat at the PC sending information to people who need ASD support, although I wouldn't stop doing it becuase I like it. It makes me valid even if the Government still like to shove my arse in with a few less desirable groups when trying to make different points to fit their agenda.

Marvellous interview on PM tonight in which the wonderful Eddie Mair quizzed the minister responsible on his own volunteering, given that apparently we should ALL be volunteering now. Cue mutters and 'oooh, good question, now let me think, oh well er, MPs do lots of work with voluntary organisations you know as part of their job.'
Eddie: Yes, but that's your job, you're paid to do that aren't you?
Minister: Er, well yes, naughty of you to drop that question in really. Er.

ATM JSA is stopped if youa re not available for work so....

damned if you don't, hungry if you do?

maybe it's the Governments new dual polcit approach to obesity?

Are people who spend time volunteering in the 'Big Society' still allowed to claim unemployment benefit, or is it going to be more a 'Noblesse Oblige' type of thing?

"When the owner wants the property back, do the government make the homeless people homeless again?' - I don't know. In the 80s when there was a lot of squatting being done, the police had to evict them , forcibly.

'We need the excesses of capitalism to be regulated by sensible government. We need a government that listens to the people.' - agree.

But I don't think the Lib Dems will restrain the extremists, and I'm afraid I don't trust the motives of the government. But let's see what they do.

grannieonabike I agree with you that those are probably the government's motives. I think the motives of some challengers of capitalism are to create anarchy as the first step in their agenda of control.

"I don't think the empty houses are given to homeless people, just occupied by them."
When the owner wants the property back, do the government make the homeless people homeless again?

I think there is a better way which is sensible government such as the LibDems or Tories, who are reinstating our civil liberties. We need the excesses of capitalism to be regulated by sensible government. We need a government that listens to the people as DivineInspiration says. It is still early days for the new government and so far they have been quite good. It is good news that the LibDems are part of the coalition as they may be able to restrain some of the ideas of the real right-wing think thanks.

'Do Big Government plan to learn anything from Big Society? Or take their opinions on board? Use their experience to influence reforms? I haven?t heard much yet about any plans for that.

Excellent point; similar debate WRT to effects of cuts being debated on BBC1 this AM, about huge behavioural standards changes following a rebuild to an (Oxford?) school and whether cuts to building funds would have long term negative influences (asdmititng teacher's rep aand archuitect far from impartial)

Sorry, DivineInspiration, our posts crossed. That's a very good question. I really hope government will listen to the experts at local level, and act upon their recommendations. What a wasted opportunity if they don't.

He's not saying we should ignore councils, he's saying the Zapatistas do.

'There will be a breakdown of law and order and the police will be seen as the state's way of enforcing its control.' - Yes, this could happen if we ignored our councils or the government. But I haven't heard anyone saying ignore our government.

Things that happen in one country in one particularly fraught period in history - a civil war - aren't going be copied in another, in another time and place, with a different lot of people. The circumstances were different then.

I think it is in order to avoid this situation that the government wants to implement this Big Society idea, because they think people would riot on the streets if they cut jobs, services and benefits. I think they see this as giving them something to live for, a way, also, of distracting their attention from what is happening.

'Yes these sozialistiche regimes gave their people basic housing and basic food supplies and ... they daren't say a word wrong about their masters.' - I agree I wouldn't want to be bribed into giving up my freedoms. But some people would say that is what capitalism does, too. And people do need somewhere to live.

I don't think the empty houses are given to homeless people, just occupied by them.

What I think is fascinating, here, is that the Coalition is trying to do something similar to what has been done before by communist regimes. The Big Society also has a dose of anarchism about it - the idea that the best aspects of human nature will rise to the top if you just remove the constraints of the state.

At least that is what they say. What I really think is happening is that they want to make devastating cuts and they want more, not less control, in order to avoid social unrest.

What happens when Big Society disagrees with Big Government about things like how to best tackle poverty and social exclusion? Many community groups have already voiced concerns about welfare reforms, cuts to re-skilling and back-to-work schemes and incentives, disability benefit changes, suggestions that methadone availability for heroin users should be time-limited, less funding for TAs in schools etc, saying that in the long run these things will lead to greater poverty, greater social and financial exclusion and further ghettoisation of deprived communities. These are the people who work closely within their communities and have a pretty thorough understanding of what?s required to build community and reduce inequalities and exclusion. Big Society already exists, and it has its own strong opinions.

Do Big Government plan to learn anything from Big Society? Or take their opinions on board? Use their experience to influence reforms? I haven?t heard much yet about any plans for that.

"where people control their local area and production through democratic communities, ignoring local councils entirely or requiring these councils to recognise them as the real power"

this is a recipe for revolution. He is saying ignore councils (i.e. ignore laws and the state). This is dreaming by intellectuals in ivory towers. The impact on the people will be devastating. There will be a breakdown of law and order and the police will be seen as the state's way of enforcing its control. It will lead to anarchy. Then what will appear, the hidden agenda of all of these revolutionary movements. The Maos and the Stasi, who keep files on all of the public and have informers around every corner, who shoot people as they try to escape their socialist prison pen and climb over the Berlin Wall to taste freedom. Yes these sozialistiche regimes gave their people basic housing and basic food supplies and they gave them all the same Trabant car, while the leaders swanned around in limousines. The people had to queue up round the corner for a rash of bacon and they daren't say a word wrong about their masters. It was slavery, just as the slave master fed and housed the slaves so that they could carry on working for him.

Watch a documentary about the Spanish Civil War and see what happens when anarchists destroy law and order, when the local big chief arbitrarily sets himself up as the new authority and when anarchists would go into villagers' houses and confiscate their pictures, belongings and valuables "for the good of the community", which was really for the good of the local strongman. The public are then at the mercy of their new socialist overlords and they judge the public to see how good socialists they really are.

By "dormant" property, this socialist progressive revolutionary, probably means confiscating people's second or third homes which they may rarely use, and giving them to homeless people. I think we already have a law here doing something similar if a home is vacant for 6 months. I don't agree with these socialist redistribution policies of taking and confiscating people's property. It is a slippery slope, it starts with taking people's pictures hanging on their walls as was done in Spain, and ends up with everything owned communally (i.e. in the hands of the overlords). It is against freedom and the interests of the people and only serves the interests of ruling elites (whether they fool the people and describe themselves as socialists, progressives or any other type of ists and ives).

M'mm, don't know about that, Claig. 'They never helped the oppressed people, they only helped the ruling elite.' To make that statement, you have to be sure that poor people were better off before the revolutions.

And no, capitalism does not require socialist revolution! That would mean death of capitalism. It's not going to happen.

If these Zapatista organisations function in the way he says they do, what's wrong with them? They might undermine capitalism, but they're hardly a threat to anyone here.

Again: capitalism is here to stay. It's rock solid, because we have all bought into it. But we can still look at other ways of organising society and maybe learn something, can't we? It's not as if we have all the answers.

I love the idea of putting unused property to some use - as long as it is not damaged. I think he is saying that it is legal in Paris.

Don't agree with the Guardian article. Typical middle class intellectual leftist pied pipers who fight capitalism and lead the people into sozialistiche Stasi type enslavement. Capitalism requires regulation not socialist revolutions which enslave humanity.

Good points grannieonabike. "Is it going to help?". Did the Stasi help?, did Mao help? They never helped the oppressed people, they only helped the ruling elite.

In the third paragraph, I think he means 'why not repurpose 'dormant' property?'

Look at this!

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/20/big-society-empower-communities

Quote:

There are many instances in South America which have provided inspiration for the anti-globalisation movement ? the Zapatista organisation of autonomous municipalities is the best known example, where people control their local area and production through democratic communities, ignoring local councils entirely or requiring these councils to recognise them as the real power. Whereas the big society attempts to suppress dissent, providing a sop and cover for cuts and the market, these forms of organisation ? anything from solidarity networks to food co-operatives ? are communities of dissent. They provide what is materially vital for its members, while being boldly political. Their internal politics ? egalitarian, horizontal, consensus-based ? promote dignity and real community, reflecting the form of organisation they wish to see throughout society. Their external politics are directed against capital and the state ? they know the cause of their exclusion, and organise themselves against it.

These principles naturally spill into the workplace, in worker-controlled organisations. Factories across Argentina run themselves "sin Patrones", without bosses. Each member directs the organisation in weekly meetings, all positions or roles are rotated and wages are equalised. Despite their gestures in the public services, worker control in the private sector is something the Tories fear and unionism was something Thatcher sought to crush ? it would be a brilliant irony if with a Akido-like reversal the big society led to their revival.

The Tories are opening a crack for us. If using "dormant" money in the banks is permissible, why repurpose "dormant" property? As in Paris, where the rents had skyrocketed, the homeless and those on social provision could simply take over unused property. Then we can start talking about the redistribution of the other "dormant" money lying around. Perhaps we can create networks of solidarity and mutual aid that will allow people to survive austerity and job losses, while directing their proper anger against the forces that created that situation and destroyed their communities in the first place ? ultimately, the system of capitalism itself.

Exciting, innit??