to wonder just who is going to drive the Big Society now?

[LilyBolero]

Big Society. Fantastic! People giving up their time, energy, skills to help society. England will prosper once more, we will all STRIVE...I feel a rendition of Jerusalem coming on...

So, exactly WHO is going to be driving this Big Society? Who goes into schools to help with everything from reading, swimming, drama, music, extra maths, school trips etc etc. Who volunteers to help at churches for coffee mornings for the elderly? Who helps out with rainbows/brownies/guides? Who helps the less mobile on their street with their shopping?

and less obviously, but equally importantly - who uses the GPs appointments during the day, ensuring that everyone isn't trying to get the coveted 'before work' or 'after work' appointments?

Lots of people do these things. But the people best placed to do so are the stay-at-home mums. But the government has made a clear statement that this is not to be made desirable, by punishing this set of people for daring to contribute to society in this way.

Who will drive it now?

Why, the unemployed of course!

There will be plenty of 'jobseekers' with huge public sector + MOD job cuts, industry going / gone abroad (to use slave labour), raised pension age, less people qualifying for disability..and 'volunteers' taking the place of paid workers etc etc.
But to get jobseeker's allowance they have to show they are constantly 'job seeking' + therefore not volunteering.
But there won't be any jobs to apply for...

The interesting thing atm is that the 'volunteers' are not the 'unemployed'. They are largely the SAHMs, plus a few people who have negotiated part time work.

The volunteer type jobs could be made into paid jobs which would help society more though.

Hear, hear, Lily.

Well said, LilyBolero and LaraJade, but can you imagine businesses suddenly saying, "Tell you what, you've been working for free long enough - why don't you come on staff and have a salary, pension and all sorts of other entitlements?" Yeah, right. They're more likely to say either:

"I have 20 people gagging to work for free, so here's your cv back; I've taken the liberty of updating it with your end date."

or

"What do you mean, pay? This is a charideeeee/ This is for the communiteeeee/ This is a business; we didn't get where we are by paying people, did we?" [delete as applicable]

Too many people have been too happy for me to do things for free for me to appreciate the Big Society.

And what about caring services supplied by volunteers? Where's the sanction if one of these carers fails to "turn up" for work, or fails to volunteer in the first place? No right to care here!

The Big Society is just a stick DC is planning to beat us all with once he's dimantled the NHS and the Welfare State and we're all picking our way through the homeless and the rubbish and the hoodies to the Job Centre at which point it will be MY fault that the area I live in has become so shit because I didn't volunteer to replace the librarians/youth workers/community police he's laid off.

there is no BIG SOCIETY
DCameron is a liar and cheat

Aren't Ken Clarke's prisoners going to drive it now and be paid for it too?

What DailMforMother said. And Larajade.

There's always another election....

Seriously, no-one got a real mandate from the last election, and it would be interesting to see what would happen if there were another election. Even if nothing changes in the make-up of the parties' seats, that would tell them that they haven't convinced anyone (that is: none of them have convinced - Labour isn't the most convincing opposition, I must say).

I have worked in the charitable sector for 10 years and SAHM's make up a very small proportion of the volunteering teams at the organisations I have worked for. Retired people were by far the biggest group.

I am a job seeker and I feel I can't commit to serious voluntary work just in case someone actually offers me a job.

I am chair of our primary school PTFA though, of the 60 families in the school we probably have about a dozen parents that actually volunteer for anything at the school and its always the same people.
To be fair they may all be doing other stuff in the voluntary sector but my point is that most people are either too busy or not interested AND THAT IS FAIR ENOUGH!

I don't want to "own" my park or my library. I want to pay a sensible amount of tax and have some QUALIFIED person run it for me.

and isn't it time the tax rate increased??? (Now that is contraversial)

and spelt wrong!

I wonder which Spin Doctor thought of that one - it means nothing to me.

If I want someone to preach about moral values and charitable pursuits, I can go to my local church and listen to the priest.

We elect PMs/MPs to do all the rest.

So many MPs are professional politicians, who don't understand about holding down a job, nor what different professions are all about - you know, that some people are better at certain tasks, so it makes sense to employ them so they do t as a job, rather than getting Auntie Mae to sweep the leaves in the park, then throw her back out.... or what about the danger of letting the community busybody (with nutty ideas) be in charge of community nursing - NO, I TOLD YOU, YOU ARE NOT HAVING ANY MORE RESPITE BECAUSE YOUR CHILD SCREAMED TOO LOUDLY YESTERDAY AFTERNOON WHILE I WAS TRYING TO NAP.

Seriously, what's to stop pettiness blocking access to "public" services? Take a good look at the Stalinist period, when it was a frequent occurrance for people to denounce their neighbours so they could have the use of the flat. Keeping public services professional keeps the sanction on those who try to abuse their position/access.

get a grip. what's wrong with encouraging people to care about and contribute to their communities? free labour or lower costs can be a happy side effect but is clearly not the driver of this concept.

LOL@ free labour

The trouble is that the government may be the official driver of the scheme, but any others will be happy to get on board with free labour. We don't live in a monolithic society.

Contributing to communities is all very well, but the privatisation/voluntarisation of certain services is likely to result in abuses of those services if we're not careful. Imagine a state school taken over by parents who then admit their friends who live out-of-catchment in the cheaper part of town. What sort of safeguards are there going to be? I go back to my example of the person responsible for community health refusing respite because s/he was annoyed by someone's child (above).

Let volunteers support guaranteed, transparently-distributed state services, community centres, clubs, playgroups, etc. As happens now.

People can care & contribute...but it scares me who will be in charge...I cant aford not to work and most sensible people I know can't either..so who will be these volunteers?..I think free labour is the driving concept...why pay when someone will do it for free..??..its like citizens advice but with no training and no chance of actual employment...what kind of people can afford this?

Busybodies?

Scary ones

Mind you, my mother volunteers, and she has a great time telling Them where to go, with their over-reliance on volunteers and undermining said volunteers while loading more tasks on said volunteers....

However, the government may be onto something, as she feels uneasy about quitting, as it's a small place, and she started volunteering in order to meet people and get a proper job.

I just really dislike the dangers of exploitation inherent in making "voluntary" what was paid/professional. Don't we have enough unemployment as it is?

Imagine a state school taken over by parents who then admit their friends who live out-of-catchment in the cheaper part of town.

Oh noes. Poor people in the rich people's school. Whatever next?

What sort of safeguards are there going to be?

Same as a regular school I would think.

exactly to both posts plu...I see exploitation and scary-arse people in charge of areas that should not be open to abuse..tis fucking scary imo..

makes me think of Hot Fuzz