Please tell me about this "Big Society" thing

[ForMashGetSmash]

I know very little about politics...I recently learned about The Big Society...and feel a bit about it all.

As far as I can see, it's about communities being asked to take more responsibilty for some public services and for people who have "vision" to stand up and organise improvements to their community.

What worries me is that in some areas...those with big problems such as high unemployment and crime, there may be a lack of people who have the time or energy to contibute...and certain things may be allowed to dissapear. I see that it has been suggested that Library's have volunteers instead of staff....that worries me also.

Could this scheme be allowed to go too far? Could certain things which society really relies on... completely dissapear?

I think you are right to be about it all.

They haven't really said how it's all supposed to work yet though, so who knows.

I do think it's a bit hopeful to think that thousands of people will suddenly start doing loads of voluntary work. Surely those who are the sort of people who do voluntary work are generally already doing it.

Hold on just thought though, 200,000 + people are about to be put out of their jobs... Maybe they are hoping that they will do it? Make them redundant, then give them the opportunity to carry on doing the jobs they used to do, but for no money

200,000? Really? From where?

You might be interested in this thread. I learned a lot from it.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/1005232-Big-Society/AllOnOnePage#20560001

I don't think it's going to be a good thing, not in this present context.

Certain things society relies upon are likely to disappear when councils decide how to spend the reduced amount of money they have. So if the choice is 'no service' or a service run on a voluntary/charitable basis then why not facilitate that?

There's no reason why areas of high unemployment or crime should not contain people willing to do something to improve their community spirit, with help where necessary. Don't know if you saw the BBC programme 'The Choir'? A simple example of how community can be altered for the better by something as relatively simple as getting people singing together

I think the main thrust of 'big society' is not necessarily volunteering, but to get us away from automatically thinking 'big state' - the very interfering way the previous government liked to manage us. 13 years of that has left many feeling that they are incapable of doing anything for themselves... we've been infantilised, if you like. This sets a different tone and should appeal to responsible adults.

200,000+ from the public sector with the cuts that have just been announced, then nobody's sure what will happen with the private sector, there will certainly be a lot of losses initially (again to the tune of tens or maybe hundreds of thousands) the govt are hoping that the private sector will then grow to provide hat number of jobs to make it up (extremely unlikely IMO).

The other problem is that this big society idea has not said who exactly they are expecting to pick up the pieces for free. Tories generally like a very 1950s nuclear family model of society with daddy out at work and mummy at home in a pinny, the majority of job losses will be women, and many think that the conservatoves idea is that they will all suddenly don their pinnies, join the WI and start running everything. Of course no-one has thought to ask women how they feel about this.

Your interpretation of 'daddy at work and mummy at home in a pinny' ISNT says more about your perception of society than anything in the Tory manifesto. What about the millions of men and women who have retired, for example, and are looking for something constructive to do? Or younger people without family ties and with plenty of spare time? They're traditionally the ones most likely to do voluntary work.

chil people who are minded to do voluntary work are already doing it. Millions of people around the country, of all ages and all walks of life, are already giving their spare time to help out with various things. I just don't see where this new army of volunteers, to run many basic services, is going to come from.

On the 1950s nuclear family idea - it is well known that is the ideal for right-wingers. In fact a conservative women was interviewed the other day and didn't mince her words - she said that women should get back into the home and looking after their families, as working mothers do not contribute anything to the economy.

I would suggest that you can find just as many Labour men as Conservative women that hold the same outdated views as the one you heard....really wouldn't take it as typical.

Two-thirds of the people being laid off from the public sector are women. ISNT is absolutely right. Big Society is about women going back to unpaid work, and it is also about privatising welfare by relying on charities to provide it.
It's a total con.

Are you going to do unpaid work? Are any of your female friends?... I think you'll find that you can't force or coerce anyone into volunteering. As for charities providing some welfare services, why not? Everyone's always going on about 'the rich' not contributing enough to society through taxation - well how about incentives to adopt various worthy causes and contribute that way instead?

This was covered, in general terms, in the Andrew Marr 'Start the Week' on R4 this morning. Worth a listen for those genuinely interested.

The example given was a local park - whose management could be transferred to a 'trust' of local park users, motivated to ensure it's well looked after. Parks being one of the areas local government might not focus on as cuts are made.

The programme had lots of general discussion on civic and local responsibility and interesting information about the Quaker movement / ethics in business.

I think that if women (and men) are put out of work and they see around them children suffering and families going hungry, they will step in to help, yes. Because many people are decent people who care about others. I think this is another part of it.... The right wingers can say, right you mealy-mouthed nicey lefty types, people are really suffering now (because of our policies), put your money where your mouth is and sort it out. This will have the happy effect of leaving left-leaning people too busy trying to stop their communities collapsing to have any time left for concerted protest against the government policies that have caused it all in the first place.

It is the biggest bureaucratic state lead scheme of all from a party that apparently wants to 'shrink the state'.

It is deeply patronising at all levels, especially to people who do it already without having a label on it. Interestingly as soon as you start to put a label on these things and provide an extrinsic reward as has been discussed with tax breaks, people no longer want to do them.

The simple fact being you cannot manufacture altruism.

"The simple fact being you cannot manufacture altruism."

But perhaps you can stifle it?

I don't think that altruism is currently stifled. Millions of people give their time voluntarily to all sorts of organisations at the moment.

Where are all the additional volunteers going to come from?

This is what is happening at the moment, from here

"Key Volunteering Facts and Figures for England
In 2008/09 71% of adults volunteered in some way with 47% volunteering at least once a month (2008/09 DCLG Citizenship Survey).
In 2008/09 41% of adults volunteered formally (giving unpaid help through a group, club or organisation) and 62% volunteered informally (giving unpaid help as an individual to someone who is not a relative)
(2008/09 DCLG Citizenship Survey).
In 2007/08 formal volunteers contributed an estimated £22.7 billion to the UK economy (UK Civil Society Almanac)."

That is an awful lot already being done. I honestly think that people who are minded to volunteer are already doing it. So who is going to do all of this extra work?

Altruism has been stifled. Lots of people volunteer but that's in spite of the prevailing culture, not because of it. Everything from CRB checks to hefty insurance costs are barriers to ordinary people making simple things happen for others. Many have just given up trying.

Your cynical 'can't do' attitude and looking for right-wing ulterior motives is also proof that altruism has been stifled.

Chil - you surely must see the irony in the Tory policy that they wish to decrease bureaucracy and state involvement, and contrast that against the Big Society - where they are actually telling people how to behave - the biggest intrusion of all.

I volunteer and do shit in my community, however I do it for no reward and no points, but you start telling me I must do it and indeed I will give you a tax break for doing it, well, you know what, go fuck yourself, you have just ruined what I was doing anyway - that's not why I do it to look better than everyone else.

Extrinsic rewards destroy intrinsic pleasure, and the only reason people volunteer is for intrinsic pleasure.

As far as I can gather, the idea is to make middle-to-low earning women redundant and for them to stay at home. There will be no-one to run current services (particularly those that help older people and children) so the unemployed mothers will do it for free, meaning that the tories are smug about spending less money, and their wives can feel good about hosting charity lunches, or those fortunate enough, continue in their well-paid work.

71% of the adult population volunteer at the moment, I just don't see where this army of additional volunteers is going to come from. You seem convinced that they will materialise. Where from?

Attacking me for pointing out this fact is pretty pathetic TBH.

Maybe from immigration ISNT ?

The other thing is that people tend to volunteer to do things that they care about, or that impact a certain part of the community that they care about.

People are not likely to eg stop volunteering for a cancer charity and go and work in the library instead, they will want to continue with what they are doing. They will not want to give up their time for things that are not close to their hearts.

I have not heard any firm figures or ideas from the govt about this, it's all very woolly. I suspect that they do not know the answers to these questions.

Very good

"telling people how to behave"

Nobody in the government, to the best of my knowledge, has told me how to behave. The last government, by contrast, was all set to have my DNA and fingerprints on a database just in case I ever decided to misbehave in the future... now that was scary.

I'm really not getting this 'making women redundant in droves and forcing them to volunteer' message that everyone seems so terrified of. In fact, looking at the legislation coming forward, anyone who is made redundant is going to be encouraged back into paid employment.... not unpaid work. The message I'm getting is that we are a stronger society when we act as a community rather than as a disparate group of individuals. That's all.