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?

hollow lol @ the jobseeker who feels they cannot commit to voluntary work.

When I was unemployed I was not allowed to do voluntary work and had to hide it from the Job Centre otherwise my benefit would be cut.

Pointy thats because your jobcentre was obviously shit..of course someone can do voluntary work !!! you just have to let us know so we can accommodate you..and obviously you have to be actively seeking work and available..

I know the rules changed.. there was a time you could only work for a registered charity...but that has changed

Oh, dear. Joanne, I meant that cronyism could muck up school, admissions. Adding the bit about the "cheaper bit of town" was very silly. I just had an idea that people could spare their particular friends the bother of moving house, but failed to look at it the other way, that some people priced out of the catchment areas might get a look-in. And of course house-price rises within catchment areas of "good" schools are iniquitous. Sorry for the flawed example.

And imagining that people would exert cronyism on behalf of less-well-off friends might have been naivete, to boot!

Well quite a few job cebtres are a bit shit. Much more recently, I was admonished for not looking at the jobs advertsied in the job centre and told I must do it, even though I explained I was waiting for a contract to come through. I know someone in a different part of the country whose benefit was docked because he had attended a careers fair in a nearby city.

pointy I will tell you its not about working hard but working smart..what you need is evidence...and you also need an adviser who knows their job well enough...the Jobcentre jobs tend to cater for a more basic type of employment...but you only have to provide proof of looking for work..not the fact you used the jobpoints or applied to jobs held on JCP systems..do not be fooled..you dont even have to provide a written account..a verbal is good enough

It was when he announced the 'Big Society' that I stopped floating and decided to vote for a different party.

It struck me as a vacuous concept with no thought-through policy to back it up. Before the election it sounded like Dave trying to be touchy-feely and have a big idea all of his very own. It finally convinced me that he had no substance. After the election, however, it became apparent that it was a smokescreen for cuts. A policy idea that gives them a reason not to fund services that should be provided by the state, but perhaps they could get a volunteer to do? Oh, what no volunteers...? Shame. The library will have to close then .

I agree that SAHMs are making all sorts of unrecognised and vital contributions.

The big flaw in the argument is;
Take for example, a library. At present a librarian is employed to work in the library. She is trained and this is the best use of her time - to use her training for what it is meant for.

So, the Big Society comes along. The librarian is made redundant. Oh no. Now the library will have to close because there is no-one to man it. I know - we'll get a volunteer. They can either get someone untrained, in which case the library gets worse, or ask the librarian to volunteer for the job she has just been sacked from, but to do it for free.

And of course, the librarian will still need an income, so will be on Jobseekers Allowance. Until the Government cut all her benefits, for being on Jobseekers Allowance for too long, whilst doing the job she was once paid for, for free.

That example about the librarian is a scary one, but I think some employment law might kick in here. When I was made redundant, I read around quite a lot on redundancy, and I understand that a company has to demonstrate that there is no business case for continuing the job, that the role itself is redundant. This is to prevent them from sacking expensive staff in order to hire "cheaper" staff. It also gives the employees a chance to make the "business case" back at the employers.

At the opposite end of the scale, if someone is made redundant and gets a payout, I believe there is scope for the Revenue to claw back the payout if the person goes back to work for the company within a certain period. This is to prevent companies from using redundancy measures as a means to give their stars a bonus which is tax-free up to a certain amount (thereby maximising what the star receives while minimising what the company has to pay out) and continuing to employ him/her.

Basically, it's very important to join your union, so that you know all this stuff, and don't get trodden on. I got a much better payout in my redundancy, just by virtue of being a union member; the decent more generous payout and terms had been negotiated long before, and I'm very grateful for it.