Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To be suspicious of this

53 replies

ForMashGetSmash · 27/10/2010 20:42

www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2010/07/big-society-speech-53572

David Cameron's idea for a "Big Society" as he calls it?

I know absolutely NOTHING of politics...but this seemd a bit Hmm

What is hiding behind this? I smell something...something rotten...but can't put my finger on it. Can you? Or is my ignorant nose decieving me?

OP posts:
Fifichef · 28/10/2010 11:24

Have printed it off because I too smelt a bit of rat - hopefully will get back!! after the big read.

DeadBodyofKaraStarbuckThrace · 28/10/2010 11:26

Basically what he is saying is "shift for yourselves, because we (the government) won't help you."

Angry
Chil1234 · 28/10/2010 12:38

Big Society - the way I read it - is a shorthand for treating us like grown-ups when it comes to contributing to our own communities. Rules and regs in the past have got in the way ... the police checks if you want to do anything involving children, the insurance if you want to hold a community event.

The last government preferred a 'Big State' to a 'Big Society'... dictating life from on high and encouraging us to wait for things to happen to us. How often was 'nanny state' the reaction to measures in recent years? This just sets a different tone.

GeorgeOsborne · 28/10/2010 12:41

It is the govt retreating. With the idea that individuals will fill the gap. Johann Hari wrote an interesting op ed about this in action at Hammersmith and Fulham.

here

ForMashGetSmash · 28/10/2010 16:58

Oh God George! I had to stop reading that when I got to the 90 year old woman who has had her support stopped....I can see it now...as they roll out the Big Community bollocks across some of Britains poorest communities...basic services will stop and people will not ave the energy/skill/guts to try to replace them.

Yes there may be SOME special individuals who will try to help those in most need of help....but they are rare people. It seems to me that this Big Community is a pretty wrapper for an ugly action.

OP posts:
ForMashGetSmash · 28/10/2010 16:59

Thanks for your thoughts people...hope someone else who knows more than I do will comment...

OP posts:
thesecondcoming · 28/10/2010 17:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ForMashGetSmash · 28/10/2010 19:27

Oh golly...it IS going to be a shitstorm!

So...how do you see this turning out secondcoming? Do you as I think, that we'll have an upsurge in crime due to unsupported drug addicts? DO you think the general environment will turn crappy as our flower displays and general outdoor cleaning services are dissapated?

Or do you think it's possible people will muck in? What about other things which may go? What do you think?

OP posts:
DuelingFanjo · 28/10/2010 19:30

Is Phil Redmond working for the Conservatives now, or was he just name-checked because Cameron was in Liverpool?

thesecondcoming · 28/10/2010 19:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ForMashGetSmash · 28/10/2010 19:37

Lol Fanjo...I KNOW! I can't see Phil Redmond..King of the Scousers...agreeing to his name being bandied about like that!

Phil was/is a product of the Thatcher years and he remembers all to well (as do I) the misery of those times...if you were working class anyway!

Good mind to bloody phone his agent and ask!

OP posts:
ForMashGetSmash · 28/10/2010 19:39

Yes secondcoming...can you imagine it?

"The police force has now been dissolved in favour of an army of well trained volunteer Daily Mail readers, who have been armed with a righteous attitude and a truncheon"

OP posts:
NotAnotherBrick · 28/10/2010 19:40

It is going to be a bloody nightmare for a while, and then people will eventually start doing something about it. But it took us a long time to get into this state, and will take a long time to get out of it.

The fact is, we have been spoonfed, and disempowered for so long now, we expect to be carried by the state, and told what to do by them, we assume it will be there, and are indignant when it isn't. We expect handouts from the government, when previously we would have got help from our family and friends.

I wrote a blog post about this a while ago - will see if I can find it and C&P it - it was in response to a thread on here about not having a right to be disappointed if your mum doens't help you out when you have a baby, even though 100 years ago, peopel would have been horrified ifa mum didn't help out in that situation!

Blog Post:

I started this post a couple of months ago, but was inspired to finish it off after reading my friend?s latest blog post. She talks about how important the internet has become now that we are becoming so isolated from eachother. I agree ? I use the internet a lot in the daytime, when all I have for company are my very wonderful, but not-yet-adult children. I feel a strong link to all the other parents out there, who also have no other adults to talk to for several hours most days.

But what goes along with the isolation is the lack of real life support and help from our real life community. According to some people on a forum I spend a lot of time reading, we are being entirely unreasonable if we expect that the people who love us will help us out when we need it. Not only unreasonable, but also in possession of an over-inflated sense of entitlement. By the time we come to have our own children, our mothers are likely to be tired of child-rearing, possibly working full time, and beginning to want a life of their own, apparently, and this is expected, it appears, by many women. If you choose to have children, then you should expect to care for them entirely on your own, unless you can afford to buy help?apparently.

Where has this view come from? Not so long ago, it was a societal norm that all members of a family would rally around when needed, and certainly the early years of child-rearing was considered a time when that should be the case.

I think this is what is at the root of our dysfunctional society. We no longer rely on eachother; we are no longer allowed to expect to be helped by members of our community (what community?); and we are no longer expected to help others who need it. I?m not just talking about financial help, I?m talking about practical and emotional help as well.

I think there are several things to blame for this. Firstly: The state. It took over the financial helping role causing the population to begin to rely on the state. As ?the state? is faceless, it doesn?t seem to require any help in return, so we have become used to getting something for nothing. Tax credits, benefits etc. None of these would be needed in a more traditional society, because if one family were struggling, another better off one would step in to help.

The maternity grant? There used to be, in every parish, church boxes of newborn clothes which were mended and cared for and donated to by all the families in the local community and then lent to mothers who needed them when their babies were due.

Childcare vouchers? If our society had enough opportunities for parents to work with their children alongside, then we wouldn?t need them; and if we did need childcare on the odd occasion, we had neighbours and family to help who expected to be needed to help as they knew they would have someone on hand to babysit in return when they needed it.

On that note: Feminism too is to blame, in my opinion. Now, don?t get me wrong ? I am a feminist. But I am one who also believes very strongly in the right of the child to have a parent caring for them for the majority of their childhood, with extra help given from other people who love that child. I know this is a contraversial view, but it doesn?t conflict, in my opinion, with my feminist views. But that little rant is for a different post! The point is, if parenting a child was given the respect and interest it deserves, then we would be under less pressure to find ?success? is only possible if it comes with money; and therefore would have less need for both parents to go out to work.

Feminism is also guilty of making women feel that we are weak if we rely on other people. Being dependent on someone else seems to mean that we are oppressed. On the other hand, some men feel emasculated if they ask for help! The branch of feminism that says we will only be equal if we try to be like men has a lot to answer for, in my opinion. I think we need a complete overhaul of our society so that we all, male or female, feel that it is ok to ask for help ? or even expected to ask for help ? and that we all feel a responsibility to give help when and where it is needed!

Parenting is not meant to be as difficult as it is for parents in our culture. It is meant to be shared, and fun. Babies are not meant to cry because there should be other adults there to cuddle them when their mother can?t; and neither are parents meant to cry for the sole reason of being so exhausted and lonely. We are not meant to get so close to the end of our tethers and beyond so frequently because there should be other adults there to take over when things get stressful. Why have we made life so hard to live when children come along; and then castigate eachother if we hope for a bit of help? It?s so sad ? not good for parents, and not good for children growing up like this.

freerangeeggs · 28/10/2010 19:59

You've really given me something to think about, NotAnotherBrick, and you've made some interesting points.

However, I take issue with the nostalgic tone of some parts of your post - harking back to the good old days when there was a box of baby clothes in every parish, and so on. The image of society you paint is idealist, not traditional.

"None of these would be needed in a more traditional society, because if one family were struggling, another better off one would step in to help." I'm sure that happened from time to time but a century ago half of all children died before the age of five, mainly due to poverty-related diseases. I've seen photos of the slums of Glasgow fifty, sixty years ago; my gran had to leave school at 13 to take care of the house after the death of her mother in childbirth. Honestly, a rose-tinted version of the past helps nobody. Things are better now and that is due to the welfare state, which protects millions of people every year.

David Cameron is a wanker and I am genuinely scared for our country. Things are worse than I had imagined.

ForMashGetSmash · 28/10/2010 19:59

Notanotherbrick Some of what you say rings true...about parents being able to work with their kids or have family to support them...but the trouble with harking back to the "good old days" of parish layette's etc is that it's too easy to forget the abject poverty which went hand in hand with all of that community minded spirit.

It's not so long ago that people starved to death due to no work....in the days of which you speak, working people could not read and so were MUCH more ignorant of the world and of what some people had...now, thanks to the media every man woman and child knows how the rich live...people would not and will not return to living in misery.

....in those days, the vicars daughter would have stitched all those tiny linen baby clothes...and then takeen care of them and mended them between lends...what vicars daughter or other educated well off young woman is going to go out and purchase a good basic baby wardrobe these days? Because she sure as hell would not know how to sew them!

I mean good God...they would not even be returned after use nowadays! The world has changed far too much.

As for the parish box....there was GREAT shame attached to being "on the Parish" in those days...nobody felt free to get help from it...and usually they had to face a stony panel of local powers-that-be in order to bloody qualify! My Nan remembered going in the 20s wth her Mum...and the panel pointing to my 10 year old Nan's boots and saying "You dont need help your child is shod"

How long before kids are barefoot again?

OP posts:
ForMashGetSmash · 28/10/2010 20:02

Freerange....exactly....nostalgic but not realistic.

OP posts:
thesecondcoming · 28/10/2010 20:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ForMashGetSmash · 28/10/2010 20:39

yes but Secondcming....I don't think they're going to make so many benefits availabe...things will be twice as tough for those on benefits soon...

OP posts:
thesecondcoming · 28/10/2010 20:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SarahJim · 28/10/2010 21:12

Notanother brick, it seems to me that you, in common with David Cameron look wistfully back to a time when:

people (women) popped in old poorly neighbours with a casserole (no need to pay home helps then)

people (women) took jobs where they could take their children with them, perhaps picking fruit or veg, or working a loom (no need for nurseries then)

people (women) fostered a sense of community, organising local events to spruce up the local park or send food packages to the local poor (no need for social services then)

The problem with this is that the people who do this are all women. Back in the day, the men were all working to bring home the bacon and they will continue to do this now (while there are still some jobs).

Perhaps I am cynical but it seems that the only way to get the 'big society' working is to make women redundant (some would say that this has already started) so they have the time to get busy in the community and free up some jobs for the boys.

Quite a few people (current government included) would consider this to be preferable anyway and the recession's just helping us clarify 'what's important'. That's why the have to cut so hard and fast to force us back into the home.

Expecting another Tory-sponsored report on the medical/social benefits to children of having SAHM any day now...

BoffinMum · 28/10/2010 21:26

As a social scientist I could probably create a nice chart directly linking the increase in women's participation in the workplace since 1986 with the improved examination results of their offspring.

So I imagine someone would be equally able to create a chart indicating the opposite. Social science can be like that in the wrong hands.

ForMashGetSmash · 28/10/2010 21:45

SarahJim they're not exactly doing much to promote SAHM mums though are they!?

Pullling support from any single women once the child hits 5...which in mant people's opinions is simply too young for wrap around care before and after school.

I dont think people should get away with not working unless they can afford it...but I DO think that vulnerable single parents deserve some support if they want to care for their own child during the crucial early years.

I think the age of 7 is far more realistic in terms of a child being able to cope wit long hours in before and after school clubs. I know kids of 5 who leave the house at 6.30am and don't get back until 7.00pm...in my opinon that is TOO long!

I hppe the government are going to relax laws on parents helping one another out with child care....is it still illegal to pay a friend to take care of your child?

OP posts:
SarahJim · 28/10/2010 21:59

ForMash, I think government feeling is that lone mums are in the 'benefit scroungers' category, rather than the 'worthy SAHM with partner working' category.

I absolutely agree with you by the way. If kids only have the one parent at home, we should be doing everything we can to help that parent be there for their children.

ForMashGetSmash · 28/10/2010 23:30

I know Sarah...it really bothers me. I am not single but I really feel for those who are single and who want to care for their DC's until they're old enough to cope with after care.

I don't know what is going to happen...it's not on.

OP posts:
DioneTheDiabolist · 28/10/2010 23:40

As far as I can see, the Big Society promotes helping friends, family and neighbours, volunteering to improve your community and taking the cuts ahead on the chin to improve the country's financial status. I can't help but think that it is incompatible with other government policies which promote getting on yer bike, dismantling already existing communities through the HB cap and the lack of implementation of the Robin Hood Tax (banks must not have to play their part in the Big Society).[hangry]

Swipe left for the next trending thread