To think that all Tory voters should become volunteers

[donkeyderby]

Give over your jobs to those who didn't vote for this bunch of monkeys, and run our libraries or feed our old people - for nothing.

Agree Inertia. The government's job is to support society. We all donate a significant percent of what we make to the government, in a fair way according to each persons means, and the government (should)ensures it is spent in the best way to support our society and ensure prosperity.

This is a total abdication of the governments responsibilities. To be passing ESSENTIAL functions onto unreliable, unsustainable, poorly trained VOLUNTEERS is a shocking, reckless disgrace.

Furthermore, our significant donation through taxes to fund the government to support society allows those who care for others to be fairly rewarded for their caring work and to earn a living to support themselves and their families.

There is a very basic point in the very first term of political philosophy which explains why, if you are making any attempt at running a civilised society, certain things can't be voluntarily opt-in. They only work collectively, or not at all; therefore any individual who insists (say) that he doesn't care if his streets are lit or not, and is therefore not paying for it, needs to be ignored because a patchily lit street has many of the disadvantages of an unlit street; and we, as a society, have chosen light over darkness. (In fact the likelihood is that this individual is banking on everyone else paying for their bit of lighting in the hope that he can benefit from lights without having to pay.)

The truth is that - as we have seen on all the splitting-bills-in-restaurants threads - that too many people, if left to estimate what their contributions should be, will (however sincerely) dramatically underestimate. In society, deciding that libraries can be run by volunteers or that people on benefits are probably just scroungers who should get jobs, is the completely unrealistic equivalent of "forgetting" service, and your drink, and your share of the garlic bread. You are not being prudent, you are ignoring legitimate expenses and sticking someone else with the bill or the consequences.

Are we just going to withdraw funding from organisations, only to have to recreate them on the cheap?

I think you have it spot on.

jjkm as Mum to 4 kids with varying degree of special need from SEN to severe disability, I have been told so many times by people that it could never happen to them or that they could cope alone that they would simply refuse to join in the pot.

Now, because of my work I would actually benefit hugely from such a scheme, but I would not think it could woprk for even a minute. Actually, I would love it if I was put out of business becuase the only way that would happen would be if people were getitng services they need- they shouldn't HAVE to pay me for information on very basic things or support.

What there currently is from state is so variable and i think differenta reas could share info a lot- our LEA is excellent for example but I think our SSD could learn a lot; a febby little leaflet dropped through teh door eysterday for ds1 (AS) asking him to ring a smile, blank face or frown on a set of objectives for the council: now apart from the whole fact that anyone near that service should know that's not how you get opinions from kids with ASD, thge statements were so blank that you'd ahve to be a sociopath- 'educate your family so you ahev a chabnce of a great lifestyle',,, er who'd say no?

And how much cash wasted?

jjkm ans HHLimbo - I disagree with you entirely. I take a the view that relying on the State to do so much absolves so many people from any sense of duty they might have to their fellow citizens.

Not many people volunteer because they think it's someone else's problem.

And regarding the necessity of certain functions justifying state involvement - imagine the cheek of us all relying on private industry to feed and clothe us??!! Surely food production and distribution should be state-run, pursuing your arguments to their logical conclusions?

To develop the analogy further, just pause to think about what nationalised food production would be like - would it be as cheap, tasty, varied, nutritious as what private industry is currently able to provide?

Or do you suspect that choices might be more limited, taste reduced and shortages of certain items likely? (like in healthcare provision, for example)

Perhaps there might be a lesson in that...

But there's a difference between everything and nothing isn;t there?

IMO the state should provide a wide safety net that really does mean nobody starves, is homeless and that vulnerable people can have their needs met without relying on volunteers (as an ex volunteer manager, I don;t beleive that voluntary provision is reliable enough for the most vulnerable people- I am talking disabled, mentally ill etc. I think those bodies should be highly regulated in terms of whoc an do the work- who woudl want JoE Volunteer Of The Week working with their non verbal child after they ahd died, after all?).

But above safety net level then it shouldn;t be state but private because above that level people should be given the chances to oeprate freely adn independently; that's why I believe in private education being available as an add on to state, and why I don't have problems with private health care.

I think the voluntary sector is wonderful for complimentary services but not those which people rely on for life, death or basic coping.

Food? I think we all rely on food, don't we? And yet somehow we all manage to choose food to suit our individual budgets, with everything produced privately - it's an outrage...send a letter to the Guardian immediately!!

Sorry can't afford the Guardian

We don;t all eat the same food and food can be accessed via Tesco hereas where does someone with LD and no living family go if the main gateway to services, social services, is privatised? they already contract to agencies anyway. The gateway needs to exist becuase of the client base they service. We all need food; most of us however have a functional IQ above 65 and no serious ability limitations that prevent us finding our own sources.

And something else that occurred to me about the volunteering.

I worked as a manager for a charity that trained and managed volunteers to work alongside (usually) agencies and whcih was glorified by both this and the last Government for it's example. The vast majority of our volunteers were SAHMs, we ahd retired people and part time workers bt for the reliability we demanded we found that mainly, it was the SAHMs who signed up.

Yet many commentators seem to think this last welfare reform was an attack on SAHMs and designed to enforce the dual owrking parent.

I just don't see that will work.

NoSuchThing - I do believe all the workers at Tescos and Sainsburys are paid for their services, no?

Forcing the likes of Barclays, Boots, Vodaphone and Top Shop to cough up the billions they avoid in tax by closing the loopholes that allow it could be a start. Instead, Tory policy targets the poor who had nothing to do with causing the problems we face and is too much in the pocket of big business to tackle the banking system that got us all in this mess. And a mess that growth would be more likely to get us out of.

Hear hear swallowt.

I am just waiting for NoSuchThing to tell me how she volunteers in Tescos. Surely just relying on Tesco to do so much "just absolves so many people from any sense of duty they might have to their fellow citizens". It would be disgraceful.

hhlimbo - yes, not sure of your point. mine was that things not run by the state work very well thank you.

i'd hand over social services to tesco or barclays.

Tesco or Barclays would not run social services because there is no profit in it. What a mischievously, ill informed little wind up merchant you are.

OK so people who woudl prefer a complete sepration of charity and state.

Say we're twenty eyars down the line and something has happened to DH and I- a car crash or soemthing.

if people are choosing not to give to charity, what exactly does happen to ds1 and ds3?

Is it like a SN X-factor? If you don;t look cute enough to get the donations you lose..... the ability to feed yourself, a roof voer your ehad and quiteb possibly with ds3 life itself?

I don't honestly think enough people woulf gie to LD to keep the services that keep people alive running. At whcih point either the state steps in again, or people die.

That's not about absolving myself of responsibility either; I take care of my boys and ama bsolutely dedicated to them.

But oen day I will die and if you talk to people with a disabled child, that does tend to be their greatest fear: NOT as some seem to want to think whetehr they can buy the ribght trainers now or whatever, but what will ahppen when they are no longer there to make sure the suport worker arrives or the meds are tkaen or whatever.

NoSuch - if people should volunteer to run essential services rather than expecting to be paid for their work, I look forward to seeing ShineyDave (and the rest of his millionaire friends currently playing a game of GovernThePlebs) sign up to carry out a volunteer programme cleaning the streets and collecting the bins .

It's somewhat disingenuous to suggest that healthcare provision should be run along the same lines as food sales. Firstly there is an enormous cost difference - no matter how competetive the market, open heart surgery is never going to cost the same as a loaf of bread. The huge costs associated with certain types of health care mean that the typical citizen has no chance of being able to afford it. The beauty of the NHS is that it provides for those who need it , not just those who can afford it. It also means that emergency health care can be immediately available. The issue of choice in private health care is not necessarily all it appears to be, as private health providers run only profitable procedures. If you are having a heart attack, or you have just given birth to a baby who needs immediate surgery to survive, you are in no position to search for the nearest provider of those services. And if you need open-heart surgery, it's no use if your local health provider does only hip replacements, or you can only afford an ingrowing toenail op. You see, the thing about a totally free market is that companies only offer what's profitable. That is not the same as what people need. And when lives are at stake we need to consider what is more important . I would rather have free-at-point-of-use, universal healthcare than market driven profiteering . People's lives and health are too important to leave to the mercy of shareholders and the stock markets.

'). I feel like it is important for people to make the choice to give, and not have it mandated. I would love to be rid of most government "benefits".

jjkm I extend the same q to you that I put to NST

If peopel chose not to give, what then for those who ahd no say in their ate? I am thinking of the disabled, carers. Would it be fine for people who cannot cater for tehmselves to be live in squalor and neglect, or even die because people didn;t fancy findinga few quid for cahrity?

I think it would come down to that.

And all the people who don't use the servoices now- do they relaise they are one bad day away from needing them? And that most of the ongoing costs of disability are related to social care so not covered by heakth insurance, and far outweigh most critical illness payments over what could be sixty years? £2k a week not unusual for care costs.

Now,a s long as I breathe I will care for ds3. But I cannot breathe forever. DS1 may well need to go into some form of specialist care at 18 if things do nto improve because a daily beating from an 11 year old is clearly qualitativly different than from a full grown man,a nd if I kept taking it then I probably would be too injured or dead to care for ds3 anwyay. It's not about eprsonal responsibility- it's about people in absolutely impossible situations that they did not ask for.

Yes, and make that idiot david cameron scub some floors while youre at it!

That'll learn him.

He is retarding our society!

We are regressing!

After we've got rid of that damn pesky welfare state and NHS, closed all the unis, and sold everything to forin companies, we might rediscover how to use metal.. then we might rediscover how to make fire! Exciting times.

I would imagine that there are far more "Tory" volunteers in society than "Labour" volunteers

jasminetom Thu 17-Feb-11 12:44:41
Unreasonable? No, in fact why don't you see if you can arrange for them to be wiped out entirely. After all, who needs taxpayers? What a ridiculous question. I personally would deport all Guardian readers.

Gosh so would I. Who bankrolls the Guardian because it never makes a profit. It is massively top heavy with Oxbridge ladies who feel terribly guilty about their privileged upbringing and feel terribly smug and superior to tell all the world about how much suffering there is and whose fault it is. One thing you will NEVER see in the Guardian is an article on the psychopathology of Liberal Fascism.