Big Society- How is it going to work?

[seekinginspiration]

I'm really confused. I do a bit of volunteering (two hours a week - but only when it fits in with other demands). I have to put paid work and family first so I need to earn some money. I think most mums and even some grannies are in this situation. How is it going to work?

no one is saying volunteering is bad, volunteering is very good indeed but is can't be a replacement for specialist services

complimentary - it is wonderful that you volunteer and you clearly put a lot into it.
But people will be losing their jobs that they have trained for and will be replaced. This is why people are angry.

complimentary - volunteers can fulfil a wonderful role doing all the things you are referring to. But if you started being asked by the nurses to do a quick bed bath for a patient, change their bedsheets and clear up their vomit after you'd shown them your books, would you start to think that maybe your role was becoming a little bit too like the role of someone who ought to be paid for their services? I'm not sure I want the dividing line between acceptable volunteer work and paid work pushed too far in one direction.

Rabbitstew. I can see what you are saying, but what choice do we have? I would rather cut the jobs/salaries of those in the local council heirarchy than librarians, that is not going to happen.

Most of us are doing some sort of 'unpaid' work. I look after a neighbour of 87, he's alone with no family. If we don't care who is? I was a social worker for years and saw how rough it was for many people. I feel we have to put politics aside, if we are going to function as a society in this present climate, particularly now, when there's no money in any pot.

(Well not any that's coming our way!)

Rabbitstew. The things you say would I be prepared to do, I have been asked already. Well I was asked to 'feed' an elderly patient! This was years ago, I told the nurse, 'it's not my role' as the poor women did not even know me!
No, there are some areas that volunteers should not be asked to do. I have also been asked to 'lift' patients, another role 'volunteers' can't and shouldn't do.
Who is going to pay your wages when you are off work for months with a bad back caused by lifting someone you were not meant to?

Queenbathsheba. The shop does not have a choice. WH Smith will pay rent for the space occupied by the volunteer shop. Not good for the patients, but nothing the volunteers can do to stop the shop being taken over.

Goodnight. I feel this issue will go on and on. Sleep tight!

"moves us on from being 'a bunch of individuals expecting things to come from on high' to 'a community that looks out for each other'."

not everyone does this, that's why we have National insurance - surely?

to expect people to pay national insurance and spend time and money helping out people in need is never going to work.

Most people don't want to help victims of drug use, domestic violence, desertion etc because they feel these people should be helping themselves or that they are responsible for their own downfall and so why should they get help.

The Tories are stupid to think 'society' will step up to do all these things.

The Tories aren't stupid. I don't think they do think "Society" will step up and do everything. I wouldn't be surprised if a fair proportion of them think that sterilisation and euthanasia would solve a lot of Society's problems.

Rabbitstew if we could only mind read!

I am going to try and find out more about what DC means when he says social enterprise, at the moment the only thing I can think of is a scheme here years ago when American express helped out at a day centre for people with LDs.

I am concerned by this term because as we have seen with the NHS, this could mean private companies.

If the condems want to privatise all services incl libraries why not have the balls to come right out and say that.

Also if private companies will bid against charities for contracts, how will these companies be competetive if they have staff to pay, whilst charities are permitted to use voluntary labour.

I think we may find that private concerns driven by profit will be permitted to employ unpaid volunteers.

In Birmigham they are making 7000 staff redundant, mainly in childrens and old peoples services

And if those jobs are pen pushing, managing their way out of a paper bag type jobs then they need to go to pay for the likes of meals on wheels.
My "friend" is pregnant and a smoker, she has a support meeting once a week, she'll be paid £200 for giving up smoking, her boyfriend will be paid £40 for being her support partner, all very good but she gave up smoking all by herself last time she was pregnant so is perfectly capable without all the money being wasted and that all needs cutting out, but if somebody wants to volunteer to be a stop smoking counsellor then fair enough, we don' need a "qualified" person on £30k a year.

Why is she only your "friend"? Why did she start smoking again when she had a small child to care for and wanted to get pregnant again? Sterilise her. Easy. She only has herself to blame.

I don't blame her for starting smoking again when she had a small child, heck i've considered it myself but she can stop, knows she should and indeed has, all the rest of the incentives, counsellors etc are neither here nor there just money down the drain.
And if you knew her medical history, the likely hood of the baby surviving and being healthy you wouldn't be joking about her being steralised but she's planning another after this one.

The Conservatives do want everything privatised, is this seriously a surprise to people ?

If everything is privatised the only winners will be wealthy men. In our patriarchial society where most private companies employ men in top positions and most wealthy share holders are male, this is just another cynical ploy by wealthy men to further undermine and undervalue women's labour.

Most of the jobs that are going are filled by women.

Historically caring and public services have rellied on cheap female labour. However under local authourity most women recieve a fairly good wage and access to training opps. If these services are farmed out to private companies, these companies will put profit first.

The Fawcet society has looked into this and concluded that the big society and the cuts will disproportionately effect women. The figure they give is 72%

Well Xenia has been telling you for years to get out of the kitchen and into the board room, you only have yourself to blame if you aren't moving with the times and looking at the market place and making yourself of value. Within any company if you save money or make money you are important, anything else you are a liability on the profit sheet and disposable.
Labour isn't required any more, we've imported the childcare workers, the health care assistants, the catering assistants, so if you want anything above minimum wage you need to either be in charge of those people or doing something else.

It's the start of the breakdown: big society = if it works we'll start to dismantle the welfare state. ie; Don't look to the government for help - look to your neighbours, family & friends - just like people did pre-1940.

( just my personal opinion )

It won't (work, that is).

He can go get knotted if he thinks I'm going to do FA to support his idea of society.

I've been interested to see that nearly all the cuts people have been concerned about in this thread are local cuts - ie issues currently the responsibility of local not central government.

The reaction here - looking tom central authorities to fix local services - suggests that people want Whitehall to take over in more areas. Would that lead to the abolition of local government?

Or should people demand more and better of their council services?

part of the reason the Welfare State was brought into being was that people saw the differences and inequalities more starkly because, in part, the war brought them closer, these days you might see less of those inequalities because of the Welfare State, take it away they will return stronger

family and friends are support systems just like they always were but that alone was not sustainable

see the stories of families being separated because there was no income and no support, poor houses and so on, see people dying of preventable diseases because they just could not afford to go and see a doctor

solely depending on the state is not good but then again making resources/services available to only a favoured few isn't either

It could work - I would be more than happy to sit with my neighbours disabled child for a couple of hours so she could go out and have a break - I would be more than happy to run my library voluntarily rather than see it close, god knows I waste enough time on here and facebook - I have the time to be a better citizen.

hospitals, prisons, schools... all of it will be run by Serco and the other prime contractors. Specialist service delivery charities will become sub contractors to the big primes, who will take their cut of course.

Fundraising will become more competitive. Decimation of voluntary sector as we know it.

I love a library dearly and use them often, but I am not sure why you're all concentrating on them.

Maternity services being run by private companies might be something we could talk about? Even less likely to get an epidural when they're trying to make a profit.

onimolap the mania for localism will likely see national strategies dismantled - so all health funding will go through the gp practices. Regional specialist provision like Harefield or Stoke Mandeville, Great Ormond St will have to compete for business.

Don't look to the state' to look after you. If you rely on the state doing things for you (stopping you smoking and nonsense like that) it can be taken away.

It's come full circle from a country that did things for itself to one that encourages the citizens to depend heavily on the state. From the 13 billion given to the voluntary sector to the billions give to the NHS. It's just not sustainable.

As a social worker, I feel money must be allocated to those who most need it most and not handed out to all kin and sundry.

For instance Surestart a great idea in principle, did some great courses. It did not change the chldrens' lives or that of the parents. Cost millions though.

Used libraries as example as topical at the moment and I'm a big fan of them. They offer so much more than just books - and if we start to get rid of them it will be to the detriment of local communities - I have a passion for libraries, spent half my childhood in one, plus I want my children to experience books - not to read everything off a computer