The Big Society

popelle, I'm afraid 'big society' is spin. For starters, it is based on the assumption that we are all too ignorant to have understood the concept of civil society. Second, what they are actually doing is handing over the taxpayer's money to big business. And what do we get in return? Shrivelled remnants of public services, job losses and disabled stroke survivors left without overnight care and told to wear nappies if they can't struggle to the loo on their own. (And the law courts upheld that case - apparently it's fine.)

Hi popelle, looking at what the government has actually done; they have cut funding for voluntary organisations (some will have to close), so this doesnt ring true.

Also I would prefer these very kind people who are going to provide all our public services to be able to earn a living and provide for their families.

Does sound like exploitation otherwise.

I think people are seeing demons even where there are none with this idea. I don't see whats wrong with the Government trying to build a strong civic society and encouraging people to volunteer. The Government cannot do everything for us and I see no issue with them looking to the voluntary sector to administer public services. Its already done by charities such as the Lifeboat and the Mountain Rescue so I don't see why we can't look at other areas of public service provision to see if we can get charities/volunteers involved.

Of course the REAL big society is the one we have already, where people are looked after, children educated, etc, by people who are rewarded for their efforts, and we all contribute to it according to our means.

This is what makes our society a pleasant place to live.

And if you combine the two you get people volunteering (working for free) in an organisation that makes a profit with a fat cat at the top.

Right edam.

'Big society' also means sacking public sector workers and getting 'volunteers' (possibly forcing criminals and the now unemployed) to do the job for free. Or the job not being done at all - they dont care either way - they are tories!

Its just a fuzzy front for cutting state services and getting their fat cat friends hooked up with some fat profits.

Big society means sacking lots of women and getting them to do it for free instead. It used to be called the 1950's.

Right again, Edam. Big Society is a cover for Big Business. And Big Business funds the Tory Party. Anyone else need their back scratched?

Btw, I am a volunteer in two different roles so am not opposed to voluntary work - just to spin and people being exploited.

Us taxpayers are shelling out for the NHS to have an economic regulator, Monitor. Why? When they are cutting quangos that actually do useful things, why do we need to spend good money on an economic regulator for a taxpayer funded public service?

Big Society is just cover for Big Business. It's just carving up public services and creating a market where big business can come and play. While leaving the donkey work to be done by ordinary people for free.

The govt. has already got fizzy drinks and processed food manufacturers writing public health policy at the Department of Health. All hospitals will be privatised (only they will be called cuddly social enterprises in the hope the public won't notice - some of us might recall what happened to an entire sector of social enterprise called building societies...).

All primary care trusts will be disbanded and their work handed over to the private sector - only it will be the local GP's name over the door so people won't notice the private sector creaming off megabucks from our taxes instead of it going into healthcare.

No doubt one or two of the volunteers actually doing the work will get MBEs. While dozens of fat cats will cream off billions from the taxpayer AND get peerages and the right to make our laws.

Getting back to the original question, I think people should volunteer their time or money when it is appropriate for them to do so. There are times in our lives when we have a bit more spare time (eg. the stay at home mum who volunteers at church or playgroup, or the gap year student, or even the pensioner) and I think people should do more to contribute to society during these times.

On the other hand, I think it is fine for the city banker to put off these activities while working 60 hour weeks and bringing up families. As long as they are willing to give the time or money at other times in their lives. IMO time spent means so much more than bunging a few pounds to a charitable cause. And there will always be lazy uncaring people who will never donate either. It is these people that I think should be made to think about the 'big society'. The bankers have nothing to do with it all.

'I was responding to Santas argument that we shouldn't be arguing over whether public services are affordable or not.

you were not as I did not make that argument. I argued that the current systrem of departmental budgeting encouraged a culture pf people set to protect their own pennies without any eye on the effective way to make long term savings. Spent wisely teh current budget would achieve far more, and perhaps we could get by on less.

Unless- what's your solution for the disabled, unemployed, sick etc? Do we say 'Oi over there unaffordable' and forget them? Could you? I couldn't. In actuality i;d rather we went under as a country desperately trying to protect the most vulnerable than abandoned them. 'Course I'd prefer neither, naturally.

No Byrel IMO the point is we could spend less and do far more if anyone who ahd an ounce of sense ever amde it to Government, yet AFAICS no party seems to get the very basic rules of where to spend in order to save.

And you know- telling people we can't afford is all weell and good but when I die someone has to care for ds3, and if I can't work then I can't pay for it. Unless we want the severely disabled homeless and starving anyway.

The Big Society is women doing even more unpaid work than they already do. I've just come back from the school's winter fair- where I volunteered- alongside an almost exclusively female volunteering team. we do the lion's share of the housework and the childcare, unpaid, and now we're supposed to replace social services as well, for no money. I am a single mother and get no money from the ex, i work to support 2 Dcs, I study so I can earn enough money in child-friendly hours in future, i make the bloody bake sale cakes and buy the raffle tickets. I haven't got time to run a school, and I could use a sit down and a glass of whiskey cup of tea now and then. I expect to be extremely poor as a pensioner and I plan to take pills or take an unsteady walk along the cliffs when i start to dodder. So Cameron the millionaire can sod off.

Raising taxes is of course an option open to the Government Takver but I was responding to Santas argument that we shouldn't be arguing over whether public services are affordable or not. At current levels of tax they aren't hence why we've been running a deficit for so long.

'Can't afford' is a value judgement, Byrel. As a country we could easily choose (as many other European countries have) to pay more of our national income in tax, and have a higher level of services.

As a country, our public spending as a % of GDP prior to the financial crisis was a little below average for the EU.

Santas- The point is we can't afford what is currently provided as we have been running a structural budget deficit since 2003 in order to pay for everything. Although this deficit has grown rapidly during the recession it existed before the recession.

Argh- typed hideously long response to byrel and then PC crashed!

Ok so what I wanted to say was that we can't seriously argue that we cannot afford what we already provide becuase clearly there isn't enough as it is: take a browse through the Sn section some day: every single bit of help anyone gets is fought for. I would argue that it is often far harder to deal with the bureaucracy in getting the very basics- school place, therapy, respite etc- than dealing with the disability itself. Cut back any further and people's lives are ruined,, absolutely.

More importantly, it's a false economy.

OK so take my family: Dh is fairly low earning atm, building up a business. I am a post grad studying graduate willing to work but unable to find childcare for 2 / 3 / 4 disabled kids depending on what happens with ds4 and how you define disability for d2.

So imagine the state decided to provide access to a Sn provision for chidlcare.

I work; we stop claiming Carer's Allowance and Tax Credits. Win win, a massive chunk of cost of provision already covered. Then you look wider- early intervention is proven to improve long term outcome, so if you invest ££ in early input you should see £££ saved long term. Famillies in poverty are more vulnerable to incredibly expensive health care costs, housing needs, crisis interventions (mental health in particular). The educational attainment of any NT siblings is likely to be reduced, along with their lifelong tax paying contributions, by poverty: we know that. Add in the tax paid by anyone working in said childcare provision, the caretaker of the building, teh grovers that provides the snacks....

Starts to become obvious that sensible well applied intervention generates cash for the state doesn;t it?

Except.

Where you get the problems.

how is it funded- council budgets. Who saves the money from benefits etc- Government. Already tehre's a mismatch and one cash strapped council isn;t going to spend money cleverly to save the arse of the government it sees as depriving it of the resources already. Then you have a system where even within a council areas compete: the education dept will not pay for early interbvention to save adult services money. they all watch their own budgets, nobody elses.

Big problem tehre.

And it's all so long term as well- we know it works, plenty of evidence for all i have mentioned, but a Government thinks election to election by nature.

As for voluntary services- if only. but it won't work. take the NAS Befriender service: a wonderful scheme. A volunteer takes someone with ASD for a few hours a week, helps social skills, the feeling of being part of the community, gives carers a break....

or in reality the person's carers apply to the scheme then person sits three eyars on the list as there are no volunteers out there.

Likewise the HomeStart scheme I worked on: great scheme, proven to save SSD money- IIRC it was every £8 spent on us saved SSD £80 nationally or somesuch. Except we had no volunteers, so our service level agreement was breeched, and the scheme was closed.

The asnwers 8are somewhere buried in this mix and Big Society in terms of community values is part of it- it's one* part, just one.

Actually, I think this cartoon sums up my take on it all.

Well, byrel, as far as I can see, since inconceivably vast amounts have been given to the banks to bail them out and therefore there is a shortfall in public funds, either I need to pay more taxes, or do more voluntary work, or see services being cut.