Big Society?

I think things are becoming clearer to me.

The Big Society is not about power to the people (no government gives away power).

It's not about giving money to people - at a time when we are being told how many cuts are going to have to be made? I don't think so.

It is about saving money and making people feel better about cuts to public services, so that they don't start rioting on the streets (which no-one wants, after all).

It's about divide and rule and re-education (maybe not a bad thing, either).

I think the proof of this is that they are parachuting 'experts' into local communities. These are government plants who are there to keep an eye on us at local level. Micro-management, in other words. It's like what the communists did in Russia and China - send party members out to the provinces to organise communes and keep people on message. Weird, isn't it?

The important thing is: is it going to work? I don't really care if it's dishonest and patronising. Is it going to help?

agree with you vesela. Isn't it amazing that hardly anybody brings up this objection to it at all? There must be millions who think the same and yet nobody gives a voice to them. The Big State socialists don't object to this aspect at all because it fits in with their Big State control agenda. Their mates, the Stasi, would have loved Big Society, they would have had Big Brother like posters with a picture of Lenin pointing his finger and a caption of "Lenin Needs You".

"but feels that Big Society does the opposite and is the state micro-managing us and organising us."

This is my issue with it, too. If it were called "measures to make it easier to set up volunteer groups" then I'd be fine with it. But I hate the idea that's suggested by the Big Society and Big Society Network names.

exactly right Riven. Claire Fox said the same, the state should be capable of providing a good education system and health service without having to corral hundreds of volunteers to join in. It's the state's responsibility to provide excellent services. It's similar to the prevailing attitude, encouraged by the progressives, that it's parents with low aspirations and not enough involvemnet in their children's education that are the problem, rather than the schools whose job it should be to provide an excellent education for everyone despite the aspirations of their parents.

panel was Claire Fox, Melanie Phillips, Michael Portillo and Matthew Taylor.

Guests were Mark Littlewood, Director General at the IEA (a free market think tank)
Philip Blond, Director of the think tank ResPublica
Silla Carron, Chair of the tenants Association at Clarence Way Estate.
Nick Pearce, Former Head of the No10 Policy Unit.

I thought Mark Littlewood the right-wing IEA guy was frightening. Portillo was very good against him. I thought Philip Blond made some very good points.
I thought Nick Pearce, former head of the Number 10 policy unit, was a disaster and shows the vacuousness at the heart of New Labour, just cliches and nothing else. Portillo was very good against Nick Pearce.

I always like Claire Fox, who is an ex-Marxist as far as I am aware, or maybe still is one. She always talks sense, and never just parrots socialist cliches. If she was in charge of policy for the Labour Party she would transform it, but she would upset a lot of the cliche parroting nodding dogs who seem to be in charge of policy now. She gives an important point of view that is never heard amongst the proselytisers for Big Society and even Labour opponents to Big Society. She agrees with cutting back the state, but feels that Big Society does the opposite and is the state micro-managing us and organising us.

thanks for the Moral Maze info grannieonabike. The guests are Claire Fox, Melanie Phillips, Michael Portillo and Matthew Taylor. Click on the link for date 21/07/10

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qk11

The Moral Maze on Radio 4 has just been discussing Big Society. If you go to BBC iplayer you should be able to hear it again.

LOL LadyBlaBla. Ditto!

As a TA in a secondary, I work with students who are very vulnerable and would find life in school difficult if not impossible without support. I don't get paid much for it, but I do get satisfaction of a job well done.

We are all concerned about Scamerons plans, and we have not been given any reassurances about our jobs. There are over 40 full-time TAs, supporting around 15 downs syndrome, and several ASD students, plus severe physical disability and/or complex medical needs. We also provide and plan alternative curriculum, pastoral support and 1:1 tuition. We are amazingly good value for what we are paid.

If I get laid off, there is no way on earth that I will some back to school as an unpaid volunteer. Sorry, but it would be a point of principle. Instead of being paid peanuts to do a good job, I will be paid about the same to sit at home on my backside, while my students suffer the consequences.

Just trying to get my head round this Big Society thing........

So is it possible for me to privatise my own house and bring in unpaid volunteers to do the housework and general domestic duties?

It's not like the feckless scroungers have anything else to do - they may as well do my housework.

Is that how it is going to work?

Where do I sign ?

Good point butter

I've worked for two big charities in volunteer liasson / management (one family cahrity and one cancer charity); both paid roles.

The cancer charity existed via fundraising aprtly from a team of what I would call 'habitual volunteers': people who were on committees for a different cahrity every day, and really already were maxed out.

The second used volunteers more centrally, to deliver services and one of the reasons my branch closed was because we simply could not recruit enough to maintain the service levels fundraisers insisted upon. A shortage of about 4 people meant no people delviering the service in the end.

Most of our volunteers were elderly, or most versatie in terms of how we could use them, p[arents of school age kids- usually single mums IME trying to get experience to get back into the workplace; the same group the Government are also targetting for back into work so won't be available. In no way could we have funded childcare or creche facilities, and we needed mainly daytime help, so that's another huge swathe of the volunteer army out of the reckoning.

I like the idea of small satte in principle but not if it results in small support which I am pretty certain it will. Different policies seem logical in themselves- such as taking single aprents of IS when kids in school and focusing on third and rpivate sector delilvery- but I am a great beleiver in Gestalt principle and think they willas a whole damage each other and cause massive problems for the very vulnerable at the middle of it all.

Small state and big tax. You'd have to be an idiot to buy that line.

People are giving less and less to charities, too here.

Because, well, they have less to give.

This will get worse when the VAT hike comes in.

There's something rotten in the state of Britain Denmark.

I personally think Cameron's Big Society will not work, at least in part because of the lack of volunteers.

I'm not sure where all these would-be volunteers are going to come from. Around here pretty much everyone volunteers who wants to, if we include all the Scout leaders, football coaches, PTA members, School governors etc.

Most people who volunteer spend a few hours a week or month on their project. I can't see anyone volunteering to run Post Offices, transport services, or housing projects. The time commitment is too high, and the reward, when you know you are doing a job that used to be a paid post, is non-existent.Plus most people who volunteer want to do something entirely different from their paid employment.

Volunteers are difficult to manage, feel entitled because they are giving their time up for nothing, and are prone to walk when things don't go their way. None of which makes it easy to depend on them.

should have added - inbuilt incentive to deliver a better one if there's competition. Otherwise it's just an expensive waste of time.

Oh and yes wrt to private / profits (have seen that happen) and again agree with whoa re these netwroks of people- we took Conservative style ethics advice and moved to enable our careers to flourish; life kicked us a bit and we are now still fighting to keep going without any loical community at all

'I fully accept that some free schools and academies will be totally rubbish, too. That doesn't make the idea bad'

I think if you aloow just anyone to establish a school you have a huge risk

I don't have a problem with select groups being allowed to establish schools with criteria (eg the Government hasn't yet answered whetehr they will force these new schools to admit SEN kids) but I want anyone doing it to have toi demoinstyrate a long term interest in education and at least some fmiliarity with diversity issues and an inclusive (not just SEN- faith groups, poverty, etc) ideology.

EG if someone estab;lishes a faith school tehy should ahve to submit a plan as part of the process showing how they wil;l pro,mote intergration within the wider society wrt to working with other faith groups 9and non faith groups).

AS for ds3's experience- sadly it only shows that provision is there for educated activist aprents who fight and whose child meets a narrow criteria: he should enver have attended MS but LEA refused to engage on that, and ds1 is one of 30 kids waiting for 5 places at the only ASD Comp unit.

There was a mention of "natural networks of people who we trust" - who's the "we"? And who are these trustworthy people? The problem with devolving things to local initiatives is that groups gather who have some kind of self-interest in being in charge (schools, say), to promote the welfare of their child/their elderly relative, or to act the local little tin-pot god and "philanthropist" who can give their clout and money/etc to projects they personally approve or not. Community things that help the disadvantaged, the marginalised, the minorities, or the "undesirables" would just be ignored.

Other than that, what expat and prolesworth said. A private company looks to its profits first, not to the welfare and service it is providing for the public.

and an inbuilt incentive to deliver a better one, though.

It all depends whether people notice the corners that are being cut, or rather, whether you think they can notice. And whether if they do notice, they can do anything about it. I think they're quite good at noticing (and for the less visible things, there are health and safety regulations, which in some areas need to be upped).

Most times when private companies have delivered a crap service, it's been glaringly obvious but we haven't been able to do anything about it because they were handed their terms on a plate, with ridiculous contract lengths etc.

What expat in Scotland said.

SanctiMoanyArse I hate it when I see councils cutting funding for schemes for SN children. That is one thing the State should always be there for. I am really glad your DS is making progress.

If anything, though, your situation underlines how essential diversity of provision is. No school is right for every child.

I fully accept that some free schools and academies will be totally rubbish, too. That doesn't make the idea bad. As I understand it, most free schools were being backed by existing school federations, private schools, or educational charities - or being set up by teachers. I hope they will have the experience to make them work. They should not be left to sink or swim, and I hope Michael Gove has the support structures in place.

prolesworth, there's a lot of corner-cutting - or just not-bothering - in a purely state-provided system though, too.

Either way, there's a lot of vigilance required (which can be expensive) and inevitably you'll be given pigs in pokes, whoever provides a service. The only thing you can do is ensure that the service-provider - whether a state or a private body - is easy to get rid of and doesn't have some massively long contract term or electoral term.