The Big Society

[rabbitstew]

(I think I've found my forum, now - posted this just now in Education...). Does anyone else think that David Cameron's idea of "The Big Society" is just his utterly cack-handed was of trying to say that the emotionally resilient should do a bit more to help the emotionally poor and needy (ie understanding the concept that all people in society are occasionally extremely needy and deserving of support, not just the generally inadequate)? I agree with this idea, I just disagree with the method of trying to carry it out - it takes too much responsibility away from the State. And, of course, the attitude of the City, whose workers are supposed to be among the more emotionally resilient, doesn't help foster the right attitude. Apparently, different rules should apply to them - they don't have the time to volunteer in this way, because City workers are just so self-importantly busy making money, nor do they want to donate money to the State to help it in a worthwhile project. They would rather keep all the money to themselves, or pick and choose their own pet charities, rather than getting involved in any sort of common cause. (Behaving like a group of capitalist cats...).

Which leads me to think that the political parties are not poles apart at all - they just disagree on the numbers in society who genuinely need support and how many of them can actually cope with being told to "pull their socks up." ie at least the "Big Society" rubbish is an attempt to show that the conservatives are not totally autistic (unlike the City).

Tee, hee. Santas - I'm in the same position as you. I've had to fight very hard to get understanding and support for myself and my ds - it was all the fighting to get it that caused most of the problems! I'm only just beginning to feel emotionally resilient enough to get back out there again and try to help myself and others feel a bit more positive about the world. In other words, my volunteering is quite self centred in many ways: I am trying to create some positive feeling within myself that Society is irredeemably broken and it can be fixed.

is NOT irredeemably broken, that is...

In other words, I'm trying very hard not to be so cynical that I can't be bothered!!!!!

Again CHil, that's only OK if you can be self reliant.

I asked SSD in home county what happened about ds3; we woudln;t qualify for help, as said below, as they now only offer crisis intervention. What if I died suddenly?

We would hope someone reported it to us in time.

AKA well he could sit here and quitr literally starve then, if nobody notices his absence. He would do that too, as long as there was a PC to stare at whilst he starved.

A Big Society is a great concept IF and only IF abcked up by adequate state care and support.

Ah you're OK- it's not irredeemably broken, not usually anyway. Depends a bit on where you are- home was very community absed if very poor, whereas here is very commuter-y and nobody pays attention to anyone.

Actually I was supposed to train as a SW next eyar but palns a year back again as ds4 is showng signs of ASD and I need that sorted forst (ds1 ASD, ds2 dyspraxia / ADD; ds3 severe ASD_ yes I know, Dh is on the waiting list for a vasectomy, best thing we could do for the state, etc).

At least this time I have almost done an MA in ASD so know where and with whom to fight.

Chil, I do agree in a way (though probably not in your way!)

To me, a large problem with the last govt. was that it was essentially seeing social welfare as 'government charity'. I still remember my heart sinking, way back in 1997, when Harriet Harman said something wrt the unemployed along the lines of "we have to help these people".

As I have always seen it, the Welfare State is about understanding that we all pay in, and we all take out. When you get a government, running it - whether from the right or the left - who don't live their own lives with the understanding that it at some point it is likely to be them and theirs who are needing to take out, then it is not working as it should.

The problem I have now is that neither side feels that - Labour want to be a bit more generous, Conservatives a bit less, but there is no fundamental difference in their view of 'people who take out' as being almost a different species to them.

I suppose what I am saying is that the Welfare state is the Big Society.

'who don't live their own lives with the understanding that it at some point it is likely to be them and theirs who are needing to take out, then it is not working as it should. '

Wise words.

Santas - that is 100% my opinion, too. I'm sure there are more of us in the woodwork. I support State institutions, because I think the State should not pass all the responsibility onto private organisations which cannot be brought to account. The problem is, we don't bring failing state institutions to account in the right ways, so seem to prefer opting into the private sector so that we can tell ourselves that we don't have any control over it. Who on earth, other than the press, thinks it is constructive to be so damning of teachers, City workers, doctors, nurses, etc, rather than trying to find more subtle ways to understand the causes of failure???

Is the press getting more gentle in its approach? Is the Government attempting to get a bit more gentle in its approach?

Or worse, we really think the "market" can solve everything, rather than just being good for our bank balances.

A wealthier country does not automatically become a fairer country.

I'm beginning to think I'm just going around in circles, now.

My personal conclusion: we can't fix everything, but we should all try to work together to make things as good as we can, and this is better achieved by trying to have constructive discusions than by shouting at each other from opposite sides of the room. But human beings find constructive debate harder than emotional venom. Even if they could actually become capable of understanding each other. Emotional or single minded politics can at least result in potential solutions being reached sooner. They just might not be the best solutions.

My other problem with it all (and particularly with the Big Society) is very much to do with where we are starting.

I do think that overall as a society it would be better if we were able to have a far greater degree of mutual support within the local area, and not be relying on top down provision.

I suspect, for example, that in terms of providing genuine education that people wanted, the Workers Educational Association back in its early days was far more effective than any government 'basic education' initiative.

But, the problem of course is that we are starting from such an unequal position in terms of access to resources.

Say we were to have a sudden bolt of lightning, that redistributed land, assets and social capital equally amongst the population - then I can see that it would be much, much better to rely on social solidarity to keep things running and support those with greater needs.

And will create a lot of emotion in those who got the worse deal this time around, which is potentially quite destructive if it gets too strong.

Sorry, was finishing my last comment without realising Takver got in, in between!

I am so glad I am not a politician. It's a job where you have to sound very confident that you are right, which inspires confidence in those who agree with you, but actually you know that the other side has got a point, too, despite trashing it every day of your life in order to sound impressive yourself.

"A wealthier country does not automatically become a fairer country."

Absolutely, nor a happier country. Of course, up to a point it helps a lot, but we are far beyond that point now.

I was asked to apply for a Phd in Social Policy but cannot afford it. Maybe one day.

I think part of the problem as well lies in how society generally operates; for all sorts of reasons we no longer have much contact with people very different to us- certainly when many of us grew up anyone with an SN was sent to a specialist unit or if they were in MS they didn;t ahve enough help (still the case) so could not perform at optimum levels and became amrked out as 'trouble'.

Few famillies have elderly relations living with them, many have moved away. Society values people on economic status so redundancy etc is seen as a scary bogeyman and people do tend to like the ostrich approach. Schools have a habit of becoming class ghettos, as well.

So it become fairly impossible to have an understanding of what it is to be someone who has ahd a different deal in life. People learn instead from stereotypes and tabloids.

So you get people on MN stating that being a carer is the same as any other form of parenting; Benefit claims staff staring at my dad and telling him it's his own fault he never paid into apension and he should be ashamed by satte reliance (in fact, hsi pension plans went under as theyw ere sold to an American firm who asset stripped htem, dad always worked, and indeed still does pushing seventy and was just asking for info as his health is failing).

And by heaping on blame etc we differentiate ourselves from the less fortunate in our own minds, making us somehow feel safer, and find excuses not to help.

I think one of my biggest blessings is that before the genetic issue sn/ bad luck were ever existent, I worked in the Sn community and didnt have to make so much of a jump into a different world as many; served me well. I still ahd huge identity issues going from employed to state claimant though, ones that still simmer belwoe the surface and would bond me to (working) Dh for life if there was nothing else there I think.

I think that you are absolutely right, Santa.

I think also though that this is very much backed up by the media, who like to portray people claiming benefits as 'scroungers', which suits their political low-tax low-benefit agenda.

You can see also the real problems with relying on voluntary help / charitable giving by comparing the amounts given to, for example, cancer research charities, compared to mental health charities.

I think that the big society idea does have legs, the idea that the state can solve each and every problem with have in a society is deeply flawed. Voluntary organisations and charities can be brought in to run and administer some services and will probably do it much better than the Government does as they won't be strangled by bureaucracy and red tape.
The previous Government thought the state could be used to solve everything and so threw money at things and put us in the sorry situation that we're in so I think a fresh approach is needed and the coalition are making one.

Yes buit it's one that seems to be abandoning teh very people that don;t have a choice.

I think it ahs legs, I think it should be limited to the nice to haves (possibly surestart, sports etc) and the state should have an absolute commitment to life basics and necessities for the more vulnerable people and that isn;t happening (didn;t really under last lot either).

The assessment system for EMA is a disgrace and is leaving many people abandoned- my field is ASD but a test asking 'can you pick up a coin'? for ASD? ridiculous! Social Services depts that refuse to help people with ASD's fulls top (unless they ahve additionals such as severe LD).

Big Society should provide the icing on the cake but if you have needs that keep you housed, fed, alive because of SN or the many related things (redundancy, illness, old age) you should be able to get that from the state because it has to be someone legally accountable (how many pleas for care apckages / school provision / benefits are won on appeal? I know it to be very many). And because for most people that is what they ahve been paying NI for aall the many years they worked before (and usually after) their claim- only the most severe cases are lifelong claimants, and they are the ones who cannot fight back if their provision is taken away.

HomeStart did a bloody great job, far better to support struggling famillies that way than via the stigma-inducing costly SSD system. OTOH when i go I want ds3 in a residential system run by an accountable state organisation that has longevity and not a tiny charity that could close after two eyars, when I am no longer there to get him settled again.

The other issue of course is monoey- first thing I ahd to do when the recession started to bite was cut the charity payments out. Bet I am very far from alone on that one!

Takver and Santas, I entirely agree with your general philosophy and share it. I wish the right philosophy could automatically result in the right solutions... but at least it is better than assuming that your politics equates to your philosophy and therefore always supporting the same political party, through thick or thin.

That I am not guilty of PMSL- been a member of Lib dems, Greens, Labour.......

Maybe it is a positive sign that we now have a coalition - it indicates that many people have been shaken out of their old political positions and genuinely are having to think out new philosophies on which to build their politics!

Big Society = steaming bucket of horse sh*t .

We pay tax (both nationally and locally) and should get something back in the form of services.

I feel especially strongly about this as I have heard that Camden Council (my LA) is planning to axe its entire play service because of govt cuts.

The service is brilliant and run by a dedicated team of professionals who know what they are doing. It is a lifeline for working parents and the kids love it.

I will fight tooth and nail to save it.
It is a frontline service not some mimsy thing that should be run in a half arsed way by a few yummy mummies.

Don't even get me started.....

Mslucy I am not aware of the play service you used so cannot comment on that, and good on you for fighting for what you need (if it comes to the boy's SNU schools I will be first to chain myself to the railings). But it doesn't have to be all 'yummy mummy' provided (and I know exactly who you mean LOL). There's mid road already out there organsing similar things in the third sector and they could fill a gap- but probably couldn't afford to without funding.

mslucy In order to fund the amount and level of public services that we currently have we'll have to raise taxes in order to pay for it. Would you be happy to pay more taxes?