Big Society?

[itstimmytime]

here and here

What do people think?

My major concern is that this policy is being developed only to absolve the government of its responsibility to those who are most in need.

There are many for whom the barriers preventing them from accessing their communities such as disability/mental health/language/old age etc are great and this requires major long term investment. There are communities people don't want to access because of (sometimes percieved) problems with drugs, violence, gangs etc. There are communities where people have no idea who their neighbour is, would like to be involved, but don't know where to begin.

I welcome any innovative thought in how to build community and deal with the issue of the 'ghettoisation' of some communities and the fragmentation of others. If people feel pride and ownership in their local community, then they might be more inclined to care more about the wee old lady down the road or the local primary school needing a new dinner hall.

I work in communities and in the last few years the council I work for has made massive inroads in integrating people more into their communities and trying to develop the existing resources. This has largely been successful, but there is much, much more work to be done (always will be!). We all know that local authorities will not have responsibility for delivering services in the future, but who will? Who will monitor it? And what will happen to the people who require support to remain in their communities?

I expect a lot of hyperbole from Cameron later and, as I live in Scotland, this won't affect us much as most elements of Cameron's plans are devolved!

I used to work for a third-sector support organisation and my experience was that voluntary community groups were baffled and upset by the constant emphasis on the need for them to become geared up to tender for public service delivery. They were being taught by government that they should cease to think in terms of grant-based support and build their capacity so that they could act as service-deliering social enterprise. I really had the impression that the whole concept was cynical on the part of local, regional, and central government. It was used to cloak two unappealing developments; the first being that grant support for the third sector was drying up; the second being the marketisation of public-service delivery.

I have very little doubt that the Big Society label is a cloak for major new tendering opportunities for the private sector. (Just like GP commissioning in the new NHS will be an opportunity for non-local private sector consortia, which will mark a real step away from community proximity to the decisionmaking processes of service provision.)

Glad Scotland might be spared a lot of this.

There will always be a role for the state, but often if the state is too bossy then society stops caring.

I think everyone agrees that we do not volunteer and help out enough as a nation.

Cameron is a "one-nation Tory" by instinct - not a Thatcherite. He comes from the patrician, paternalist school of Conservatism - a "high Tory", not a "low Tory". Of course, the fact that the nation's finances are in such a State means he has to cut. That means that it isn't just nice for society to fill the gap, but sadly essential.

However the real "big society" person isn't Cameron, it is Iain Duncan Smith. More than any other person, he is the guy who everyone, regardless of their politics, should be willing to succeed. He has that burning zeal and complete conviction - Cameron is sometimes too opportunistic, like Blair - though far less than his detractors think.

Every department has to be cut, but I hope Osborne will grant IDS the latitude to fund some of his benefit reforms this year. £500m invested in "tough love" schemes now will pay billions of dividends in the years to come - and the improvement in social cohesion will be incalculable.

can someone explain to me what this would mean in laymans terms - how this would work day to day?

is this a plan to cut LA resources for supporting communities.

the op states "We all know that local authorities will not have responsibility for delivering services in the future, but who will? Who will monitor it? And what will happen to the people who require support to remain in their communities? "

i didn't know this. are we talking about support for cummunity organisations and community work - or something else?

sorry for being behind the door. dh works in this sector for a LA, so would like to know if its likley he will lose his job

TIA

Yes, proles, the volunteering ethic is pretty well established I think, and I don't think it will be aided by a top-down (and in that sense anti-communitarian) attempt to squeeze it away from its natural position and into the provision of quite complex infrastructure.

Here's an idea: if the govt thinks there isn't enough of a 'mucking in' ethic by which we all accept our responsibility to the more vulnerable, why doesn't it (and why doesn't the Labour Party) have the nerve to celebrate taxation, and proselytize on its behalf, instead of assuming that we are all selish bastards who don't want to contribute a reasonable portion of our wealth to social ends.

One council in Scotland has recently had a compulsory retendering of support services halted by a mass application by users of the services for a direct payment and very vocal campaigning. Then a report by Deloitte was scathing of the council's approach. It'll be interesting to see what happens next.

I know that massive cuts have to be made, although to me, 'Big Society' sounds costly to implement and I can't see how it will work. I mean, who has the time to take on what the services provide? And we can't just let people die of hunger etc. This is Britain. Massive institutions anyone?

re benefit reforms - I wish they would stop going on about disability benefits. They are not 'easy' to get - try a 60 page form for DLA and the type of people who abuse this system cannot be legislated against. Jobseekers and Tax Credits yes - people should be working whether they are 'better off' or not. I agree about the state being 'bossy' longfingernails and many new bits of legislation are so confusing to implement (Adult Support and Protection springs to mind in Scotland).

Prolesworth Well, obviously I was wrong!

How are you by the way? I haven't seen you posting about the Labour leadership election lately?

Eleison Surely you can see that taxation and donation are totally different - the act of giving voluntarily tp something dear to your heart is infinitely more noble than money being taken from you by distant bureaucrats who will almost certainly waste it! Time is often far more valuable than money anyway.

This is what it sounds like to me: Government cuts lead to unemployment. What to do with people out of work? Encourage them to work in voluntary sector for nothing. How are they supported? Benefits. Could this be a way of keeping people on benefits rather than finding them jobs - ie more government control over people's lives, not less? Unpaid volunteers also take paid jobs away.

But if unemployment is inevitable, then this might be better than people having nothing to do. It's a sort of community service. However, a few months down the line, we'll find we don't get our benefits unless we join one of these local schemes.

That might not be a bad idea. And money is going to be poured into it from an independent wholesale bank - the Big Society Bank - which contains all money from all the bank accounts that have been untouched for 15 years or more. (Who does this money belong to??)

However, they are also going to 'leverage' private sector investment - that phrase should always ring alarm bells, because the private sector needs to make a profit. How does the private sector make a profit in this context? By charging local people.

So unemployed people, working for free, will end up paying for previously free services. Nice.

However ...

The government really want this to succeed and they are going to pour money into it, so I think local groups should grab it with both hands.

But we mustn't be conned into thinking it's about redistributing power to the people. The first thing any political party does is make sure they have as much power as possible - otherwise they wouldn't exist. No party is going to give power away, whatever they say. If people want power, they have to take it. So take the money and run with it. What's the alternative? No jobs and nothing to do. At least unemployed people will learn lots of valuable skills, and, yes, will feel part of the community, and, yes, will feel they are valued and have something to give.

On the message board after the articles someone writes:

'No mention there of promoting the creation of more credit unions which provide proper banking services for the less well off' -
this is a brilliant idea, and truly subversive of the power of the banks/government. Credit unions take your money, keep it safe and give it back to you when you need it. What banks used to do.

Yes of course I can see that they are different, and that there is a place for donation on top of taxation. But it is still possible to imagine a community in which the state is viewed as an instrument established by all of us as our agent in the provision of social justice and the assistence of the needy -- just as we might view the governing body of a charity. The more taxation is celebrated as our common strategy for the provision of support, and the less it is portrayed as somehting stolen from us, then the more empowered we can be and feel as citizens acting in a common project.

It would be a positive move if everyone on benefits could make a positive contribution to society while looking for a job

That would be a practical Big Society initiative. Putting someting back while society gives you a helping hand. Kind of quid pro quo.

Lots of people do volunteer - but public service for the common good has to be embedded in the benefits sytem too.

If we are paying people on benefits, it would cost no more to have them volunteer in return.

At the moment Big Society is just a soundbite. We need to mobilise 2 million people behind it. I worked for a voluntary organisation where lots of people on benefits gained job experience so it can be done.

I agree with longfingernails post. Very good summary and yes we do need a bit of investment in IDS ideas to get this going.

Custardo I mean that the services delivered by local authorities will look very different in 5 years time. I think that all services currently delivered by LAs will be tendered out... Not trying to scaremonger, just what I have heard. I am in Scotland tho!

Oh, and I work with loads of volunteers, and am one myself on a community development group.

x-post grannieonabkie. What you say is very interesting and makes much sense.

Custardo, I hadn't seen your post when I wrote mine. What I did was read the articles included by itstimmytime. Maybe I've jumped to the wrong conclusions. Wouldn't be the first time.

Eleison talks a lot of sense.

That sounds good Prolesworth (although a bit radical for Mr Cameron and IDS). And many communities would benefit hugely, just a shame we have got to this point.

Sorry - I resent paying taxes, by and large.

Obviously they are essential but the State does not need 50% of the money in this country - and so much tax is totally wasted.

As a ballpark figure I would be much happier at a 35%/65% split between public and private.

If we have too much State we end up with stupidities like CRB, ID cards, and the like.

Bureaucracy is inherent to the State - there is a reason councils are so much worse run than most big retailers. Rigidly sticking to centrally imposed bad rules leads to terrible tick-box regulation - like the FSA and Stafford Hospital.

Of course the State must always be there to help us up when we fall down, and to look after those who cannot look after themselves. It also has to be a tough regulator. However the very nature of the State means that too often it keeps us down.

The State can do wonderful things but by and large, it is wasteful and unresponsive. The State discourages innovation. It breeds uniformity. It absolves us of responsibility by robbing us of discretion and the faculty of discrimination. Almost always, this stultifying dullness is innate - not an artifact of implementation.

I would trust the State a lot more if it is devolved down as far as possible instead of bring run by Whitehall. We have natural networks of people who we trust - why not rely on them more?

Oops sorry, was having a literary flight of fancy there - ignore the unnecessarily flowery language!

I also don't agree with community service for people on benefits. Benefits are basically a insurance scheme that covers you for hard times. We're not doing people a favour by paying them benefits, simply giving them their due. They shouldn't come with any responsibility except for that of paying NI when you're working or once you're working. An insurance company wouldn't say to someone "you had a house fire - we'll pay out if you help clear up."

Sure there will always be people who game the system (as with commercial insurance). All you can do is to try and minimise the opportunity for that, and also ensure that it doesn't cost more to work.

Are people really so blind and stupid?

Think they haven't planned this out?

First, get as many who are on benefit as possible onto JSA. It's cheaper than other benefits, with the added 'bonus' of having the recipient's housing benefit cut by 10% after 12 months.

Next, now you have them on JSA, they are no longer disabled lone parents, they're unemployed scroungers.

You got 'em where you want 'em.

Cut more public services, making more unemployed, then introduce Big Society as a means by which to compel such people to work for next to nothing (£60-odd/week on JSA for a single person) doing jobs the public sector used to pay a living wage to do.

Easy peasy - they're feckless unemployed, anyhow.

How on Earth anyone sees this as anything but a con is beyond me.

But the next time someone calls me 'harsh' on here, I'll refer them to people who support Tories because if villifying the disabled and vulnerable isn't harsh, I don't know what is.

'Sorry - I resent paying taxes, by and large.'

Then why don't you move to a country that doesn't have them, or where it's so corrupt you can easily get out of them.

And then you can see just how much good infrastructure costs and just how valuable it is.

Because anyone who believes their taxes should operate like a shop, pay in, get a good out, is a fool.

The greatest boon taxes usually bring is a peaceful society with good infrastructure that allows the majority to go and earn a living as they see fit mostly uninterrupted, so they have the luxury to moan about it all on the net instead of dodging bullets and queuing up all day for some rice.

Anyone who thinks Britain is 'broken' should be put on a one-way flight to Haiti.

That's what broken is.

But low taxes and all.

Proles has a great point - are there any statistics as to how many people in the UK or England (which it seems is where this is really going to happen) volunteer, with their time or money or expertise or whatever? Do they actually know how many people do it now, and how many people they expect to do it going forward? How do they intend to encourage additional people to volunteer? Do they know that people have the time and resources to give, outside of their immediate work and family commitments? And so on.

Have they actually got any figures to back all of this up or are they going to simply pull services and hope someone comes along to fill the gap?

Just read the articles, get it now, it's just privatising everything.

Another thing I don't get is how they are going to ensure they have the right services of the right scale in the right places. If they just leave it to everyone to do whatever they fancy then it'll be fragmented and ineffective.

expatinscotland I said I wanted a 35% state instead of a 50% state - not a 0% state!

I am completely convinced that the state could shrink by about a quarter and society will be better for it. I think shrinking it by half would be too much though.

These are relative questions, not absolute onces.