The Big Society

Agree with you about children, BoffinMum, and that people's attitudes towards them condition our views as to whether women should work in or outside the home. (But we don't all have to do the same thing, do we, and nor do men, surely).

Maybe it also explains why some people are so extraordinarily hostile towards the brave teenagers who demonstrated against the cuts - although it's also got a lot to do with the way they are usually portrayed in the media, imo.

I think there is a kind of moral authorianism creeping in linked with some aspects of a laissez faire approach, whereby women get the worst of both worlds - the underpinning argument is work if you want to, we won't stop you, but by the way you ought to be at home doing your bit so don't complain if you are finding it tough.

This is very redolent of the confused policies regarding women and families in the 1980s, was a disaster then, and is starting to look like a disaster now.

I think the problem is that really we do want women to work as it brings economic prosperity to the nation as a whole, as well as a more comfortable post-age-65 existence for the individual women concerned, but we are terrified of getting into a East German type situation where women more or less have to work but end up doing everything domestically as well (which is increasingly the case from the vantage point, only without the free childcare the East Germans had at their disposal).

I think the key to unpicking it all might be addressing the British ambivalence towards children. Some people see children as a biological imperative, some see them as a luxury lifestyle accessory, and until there is a more cohesive (compassionate?) societal view we will get nowhere. We will know when we have got there as people will not be saying things like "Well you shouldn't have children if you can't afford it" and so on. We would also see more compassion towards the elderly at the same time, who are also seen as a societal burden in some ways. We have to get away from this seeing other people as a nusiance.

Rabbit,I've read this thread and your other "bankers bonus" thread,I get what you're debating,I don't have any problems with your stream of consciousness type of posting, that makes for a truthful debate I reckon.

      Going back a couple years,2008ish, when the credit crunch & recession first began to impinge on the mass culture,I almost felt invigorated,I thought a new way of thought would emerge, cutting back on over consumption; making do and doing without,respect for frugality, and most of all, a realization of the fragility of the planet and the need for a more sustainable economy.I think we could could all have much better lives; and it needn,t be all sacrifice,it could be exciting,challenging and rewarding.

Now, though, just 6 months into the new coalition govt,all I really feel is fear,and I am speaking as a person living at poverty level already,I'm in my 50's, have no career,no prospects, no pension, no savings.I've never earned very much but I've had (so far) an interesting and creative life,and have raised my chidren to be considerate and kind people.

    What happened? how did this opportunity for radical reform turn into such a blaming,vindictive un-generous scenario?

      When people are frightened, they get selfish, they want to look after their own interests,and sod other people.--I feel it in myself, I'm so anxious about my own family's future that I feel as if I have no resources or energy left to care about helping other people.

And I HATE that feeling,I've spent my life being helpful,a good citizen,trying to be a kind and "good" member of society.It sits very badly with me to be obsessed with me and mine. I used to be so brave -like you takver,I'm an anarchist at heart,but my bravery has been replaced by fearfulness.

If you are right,whoever it was that said that we get the society we deserve,then maybe we do need a total breakdown before reassembling into another form. Is there an example in history we could look at and learn from?

 Please keep debating this,it is very thought provoking.

Boffinmum and Takver, I felt the same - who wouldn't? But when I realised that it would mean volunteers doing the jobs of paid workers and big business taking over services that should be provided by the state, I went off the idea! Now it sounds more like micro-managing, and it feels like the government is actually sabotaging the local good-neighbourliness that already exists in most places.

Boffinmum - your point "My problem is that a lot of the things I think need putting in place look superficially like the ones the Coalition are doing, but I think the motivation and implementation would be different. I am finding it really hard to conceptualise and articulate exactly how this would manifest itself, though."

is exactly where I find myself. As an anarchist at heart (though often a social democrat in practice) I am very much in favour of localisation, mutual aid, people working together to support themselves. On the surface, it feels like I ought to be in favour of all these 'big society' proposals. But as you say, this is just not quite starting from the right place.

Need to go & do stuff now, but would love to talk more about all this.

I volunteer and work for a community group that really should be government-funded but relies on donations, small grants and a lot of goodwill.

Fantastic thread OP,and I look forward to reading it properly when I'm less knackered.

But sorry, just had to say 'Autistic'? That makes me cringe tbh - as much as schitzoid/mental/spastic, etc. DS is autistic and he leans more towards anarchism!

The mess was caused by a combination of greed in the city and incompetance in the Government.

Maybe we should set up a Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Forgive whoever dunnit and work together to find a way out.

The Tories have stolen a march on the rest of us. They have come up with a plan that is at least coherent in theory, and, if it were allowed to happen, probably would deliver the sort of society that they want. Sadly, the rest of us would have to emigrate.

So what do we want? This is my Christmas list.
Free education paid for by tax payers.
NHS free at the point of delivery. Paid for by tax payers.
Free care for the elderly. Paid for by tax payers.

For starters.

edam, please could you find a link to that stuff on the Scandi women?

Thing is, nobody does know who caused the mess. It wasn't just the bankers. It was more complicated than that.

So the only thing we can do is gird our loins and press on with strategies for building the society we actually want, not the one people keep telling us we have to have.

My problem is that a lot of the things I think need putting in place look superficially like the ones the Coalition are doing, but I think the motivation and implementation would be different. I am finding it really hard to conceptualise and articulate exactly how this would manifest itself, though.

Too right, BoffinMum!

OK, well, the kids have already started with their demos against the cuts. We could folloe their lead by looking at what we've all got to lose by the way in which the Coalition want to reorganise society.

Unless we can stop one section of society blaming another - the young blaming the old and vice-versa; the working poor blaming the benefit 'scroungers'; the middle classes blaming everyone else and the able-bodied blaming the disabled for claiming allowances or not taking inappropriate jobs - whatever - and focus our energy on who is actually responsible and who can be made to do something about this, we won't get anywhere fast.

Right then, where do we start?
We get the society we deserve, after all. So let's deserve a better one.

thanks for linking that article lifeinlimbo

The women of Sweden* did exactly that when they had a banking/economic crisis. Refused to pick up the pieces without substantial change. Wish we could do the same here.

(*I think, possibly AN Other Scandinavian country)

Can we hope that current policy will implode so badly that the womenfolk will be able to wade in and impose a kind of martial compassion of some kind?

It stands to reason that the more equal a society, the more equal the peoples' access to society's resources, the more willing the members will be to invest in their communities.

But Dave's Big Society is merely: "Let's keep the rich as rich as they've ever been and leave other people to mop up the mess"

Lifeinlimbo - Thaks for the link. Abslutely shocking and hateful.

Here is a good, illustrated example of what big-society means to the tories.