Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
ForMashGetSmash · 28/10/2010 23:48

Oh yes Dione!How are these families going to manage to find new homes? Many private landlords wont look at people on benefits...they'll be opening workhouses next...oh...now I have said that I have a SCARY feeling that they MIGHT!

They wont call the workhouses of course...more like "Family relocation centre's"

Or "Social Living Centre's"

But they'll just be workhouses...or am I going too far?

OP posts:
MaMoTTaT · 28/10/2010 23:54

god I just read that Indie article - how bloody depressing Sad

DioneTheDiabolist · 28/10/2010 23:54

Come come now ForMash, now you're being ridiculous. Those are the plans for Cameron's next term in office, not this one. He'll probably nick your "Social Living Centres" name, so protect it now. It may be all you have left in 5 years time.

ForMashGetSmash · 28/10/2010 23:58

Lol Dione! I might open my own and privatise it! I could be a great workhouse Matron!

"Come now Mrs Smith...don't mourn what's gone...your council home has gone to a young family who can afford the rent! It's all for the good of the Big Society! Now eat up your gruel nourishing free food...and get on with picking that Oakum!"

OP posts:
Heracles · 29/10/2010 01:50

Easy to forget that in this golden age people hark on about life was harsher, more unfair, more restrictive, less healthy, more crime-ridden, more judgemental and less progressive.

You're welcome to it, frankly.

The people who moan about the influence of "the state" are usually the first to moan at The State when something goes awry, which is the root cause of The State, in order to be fully accountable for its mistakes, getting bigger, slower and more expensive.

BoffinMum · 29/10/2010 07:27

Oh no, they will just reuse immigration centres like Yarlswood as modern day poorhouses. Which they effectively already are.

Dormitory sleeping and an hour's inadequate schooling a day for the kids.

I am only partly joking, btw.

Chil1234 · 29/10/2010 07:48

It sounds as though everyone on this thread at least is either too bone idle or cynical to do something for anyone else, doesn't want to make an iota of difference to their community, is indifferent to their friends, family and neighbours and would prefer to live in glorious & selfish isolation, making demands and waiting for 'the state' to make things happen to them rather than getting off their backsides and participating on any level.

Or is everyone grumbling for effect and actually doing all of these things in practice?

Gory09 · 29/10/2010 08:01

Thesecondcoming this is my understanding of the community bit as well. I went to the library the other day and they now have machines to check books in and out so there is less need for librarians. On the same day I saw in the news that it will be expexted for librarians to work on a volunteer basis. It is very sad and I see a big big flow with it. My last DD is in nursery and I have have just started working a few hours in school (am not a single mum but imagine the process of thought for a siingle mum could be similar to mine) the plan is that when DD is in Reception I will find more hours to do and my first idea was to work in a library because it appears easy to find part time jobs in the area that could fit school hours most days. Now if this type of job is becoing unpayed I do not see how it helps single mothers back into employment and off benefits as I have no doubt that before too long other previously payed jobs will be made "volunteer" jobs and this jobs will the ones that a young mother with little work experience or older mothers like myself who have been SAHM for a decade would actually have thought to go for.

MrsVincentPrice · 29/10/2010 08:06

It all makes sense if you link up the Centre For Policy Research woman's claim that female public sector workers should be grateful that they're being made redundant because the government is helping them spend more time with their children.
Women then pick up the slack where the state has been cut back. It's a brilliant plan if a) people get married before having kids and never divorce and b) property prices crash so they no longer require two incomes to buy or rent.

BoffinMum · 29/10/2010 08:26

Chil, a lot of us on here spend significant amounts of time doing voluntary things and always have, so I am not sure your comments were well directed.

I think what concerns most women is the idea that they are now going to be deprived of hard won jobs and financial security and expected to do voluntary work for free all the time instead, at the behest of other people. This might have been OK in years gone past, but society is radically different now and it would mean real hardship for any women whose bloke died or turned out to be less than responsible.

It would also mean that educated women would be required to leave their brains at the door upon marriage, which is indeed what used to happen. There is a great body of opinion, including very many bank of England reports, that argues women's participation in a life outside the home and in the workplace was a significant factor fuelling economic growth over the last couple of decades. So even if one individual woman chooses to stay at home, we are more or less relying on her neighbour next door to do the opposite in order to ensure the prosperity of the rest of us. If we all stay at home, society as a whole will be substantially less affluent and prosperous, and ironically children overall will be less well served (even though some individual families in some social groups might feel less hassled).

HTH

BoffinMum · 29/10/2010 08:28

TBH I am starting to wonder if people leave their brains at the door when joining think tanks. It seems to be a pre-requisite.

BoffinMum · 29/10/2010 08:29

Youth crime was a major concern after World War 2, by the way. As was domestic violence and baby battering. I don't think we want to go back to that, do you?

ForMashGetSmash · 29/10/2010 09:04

Chilli..yes...there are many women on here who already care for elderly relatives, who help out in toddler groups AND work for a living. People DO want a good sharing society but not one which penalises the poor or vulneraable.

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 29/10/2010 09:21

@Boffinmum .... I don't think a return to some kind of 1930s stereotype is the logical conclusion from calls for a more inclusive, more participative society. Plenty of women will still be going out to work and paying tax into the economy and plenty of other women will be making different lifestyle choices - all of which we support. And lots of people (myself included) think they can make a difference to their community at the same time. One of the criticisms of the CB change has been that it will 'force more SAHP back into employment'. Your criticism of a big society seems to be that they will be forced to stay at home and do voluntary work. Neither, I suspect, are true.

Gory09 · 29/10/2010 09:33

But Chil, I know my understanding of it is very simplistic but I think the problem is that they are doing "all and its opposite"(sorry I am litterally translating a French saying as cannot find equivalent Englih one). On one hand they want more people in employement and on the other hand want to make accessible jobs "voluntary". They want single mums back to work even if it makes it a real sruggle to them and married woman with DCs to SAH even if they never expressed any desire to do so.

thesecondcoming · 29/10/2010 09:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Heracles · 29/10/2010 10:01

The talk of a "Big Society" is just a BS was of forcing through their ideology. Apparently "Fuck the Poor" played badly with focus groups outside Chelsea...

abeautifulbutterfly · 29/10/2010 10:19

Just like ideological communism, this kind of stuff is the sort of thing that 12-year-olds think of as "obviously" the only ideological way to go but in anyone older it's just cynical. And in government terrifying.

purits · 29/10/2010 10:30

I think that the Nanny State undermined society. Remember when they tried to insist on paperwork and registration forms for women looking after their own grandchildren.Shock

Everybody knows that voluntary groups like Scouts etc are dying a death because no-one wants the aggro of all the red tape. CRB and the like has produced a mentality of mistrust where it is assumed that if you want to work with kids then you must be a paedo; everyone is guilty until proved innocent. It has destroyed trust and made us all fearful of each other.

Anniegetyourgun · 29/10/2010 10:40

"four parts of our country ? Eden Valley in Cumbria, Windsor and Maidenhead, Sutton and here in Liverpool ? came to us and said: ?we want more power and control"

I must admit I don't really see why the layered democracy we have at the moment, eked out as it already is with numerous voluntary organisations filling in the gaps, fails to be participative. What seems to be the biggest complaint is that it forces people to participate when they'd really rather not. Right now everyone has to do their bit towards society, even if it's only paying local and national taxes, or raising the next generation of citizens. In a Cameronian future, those who can't be arsed won't have to be arsed. Maybe the "every man for himself" attitude that looks on governance as an imposition is the thing that needs to be addressed first.

thesecondcoming · 29/10/2010 16:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Thistledew · 29/10/2010 20:15

One of the big problems with turning social assistance programs over to the voluntary sector is that the provision of help does become voluntary.

I work in a social welfare area and some my clients have such a complex combination of mental health problems, educational disadvantage and perhaps substance abuse that they are quite frankly a nightmare to deal with. It is much easier for me to help many more of my clients who do not have these problems. .

However I always do my best for even the difficult clients because it is my job to do so and they have a clear statutory entitlement to the same help and support from other services as the more amenable clients. If these services are provided on a voluntary basis, there will be no obligation for everyone to be treated as deserving of the same rights and entitlements and some of the most vulnerable people will be left without the help they need.

DioneTheDiabolist · 29/10/2010 23:11

Chil, lots of people, particularly women, do already volunteer, help out friends, family and neighbours. I'm sorry that your own situation is different, but maybe if you got more involved with voluntary organisations you would see it in action and realise that (while complementary) it is no alternative for government intervention. The Big Society already exists and its contributors should not be sacrificed because the current government believes that appeasing the markets comes before the welfare of its citizens and the long term welfare of the economy.

melezka · 29/10/2010 23:39

When I used to work in the East End (some years ago now) I talked to a bloke in a pub who was in despair at the way society was so uncaring about people. He told me that when the Krays were around nobody went hungry - if you needed anything a box of veg would find its way onto your back step...
Perhaps it's something to aim for...

DioneTheDiabolist · 29/10/2010 23:47

Or perhaps six men with knuckle dusters and snooker cues. Depends on who the hungry man (and his family) owed money to.