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?

I would be happier with the "Big Society" idea if the top Tories paid more than lip service to the idea. If "We're all in this together" then why do they routinely avoid paying tax? It strikes me as just a tad hypocritical.

Slug. Tax avoidance isn't illegal, that's why Ed and David Miliband did it when they bought their father's house. If they did it as Socialist/Marxists. Why would others not?
The Milibands are hypocrites, I expect nothing else.

Did the country do things for itself in the past? Or just not involve itself so much in the lives of those who lived in slums?

workhouses
pauper's graves
health care only for those who could pay

Yes, fishie,I agree. Also there will be no strategic planning, so infrastructure breaks down and economies of scale are lost (eg in procurement).The resultant move to local taxation will mean that, without x-subsidy, those areas that most need the services will be least able to raise cash for them.

that was to f's 10:34 btw

When the welfare state was introduced the assumption was that people would much prefer to work than to sit at home doing nothing. It was also assumed that people with plenty of cash and/or time on their hands, charities, churches, foundations etc. would engage in 'good works' as a moral obligation. The welfare state was designed as a safety-net to catch people that fell between all the various stools.

Stools? We really are in the shit, then. (sorry, couldn't resist).

1. All the women give up work and become SAHM.
2. They then do the jobs they did previously as paid employees for free, or for pin money.
3. If you want help you will have to look like a needy/worthy cause or you'll be on the scrap heap. So prepare for prejudice at every turn.
4. Women become entirely reliant on the wealth and status of their husbands in order to survive and/or prosper.

Rather sounds like what politicians wives morph into, doesn't it?

"give bankers a chance to rehabilitate themselves through charitable projects, perhaps?" I don't think they consider themselves in need of rehabilitation, do you?

I'm sure not all feel in need of rehabilitation but I do know a very wealthy ex-banker who supports the families of 15 Gurkhas, is the mainstay of 3 arts organisations, a dementia charity and has provided the backing for a new charity that arranges feel-good treatments for cancer patients. He also does several money-raising events of his own. Etc. He can afford to do all this and so he does. One of his colleagues - also very wealthy has given his life to a school in Africa - not sure where - has moved there and works with his wealthy connections to keep it all sustainable. Only two examples but they and their friends are just as representative. I think some people feel a sense of social responsibility and some don't. The Quakers, for eg, were amazing businessmen - hugely successful but with a vey big social duty imperative. If you have a social conscience it's easier to put into action with money. To me the Big Society - a phrase I really hate - is about thinking of what you can do, whatever your circumstances - rather than looking out for what can be done for you. JFK - you know the one.

''When the welfare state was introduced the assumption was that people would much prefer to work than to sit at home doing nothing. It was also assumed that people with plenty of cash and/or time on their hands, charities, churches, foundations etc. would engage in 'good works' as a moral obligation. The welfare state was designed as a safety-net to catch people that fell between all the various stools''

it was also deeply moralistic in its inception particularly toward single women, and was behind the times almost from the word go as social trends changed dramatically shortly afterwards, it has been a catch up game ever since, and frankly always lacking a frank and open debated on how to fund it

crystalstair perhaps those are not the one who got us into this mess, not all are reckless gamblers and some sense of social responsibility as do other people in other walks of life with fewer means

@CrystalStair.... the kind of social conscience approach you're describing there is exactly what I think we should be pushing to apply more widely. This 'Big Society Bank' idea - which sounds like the Lottery Fund - has great potential I think if we put the pressure on in the right places. Taxation doesn't get wallets opening as effectively.

Was anyone else as surprised as me that charities depend so heavily on state funding? I thought charities were far more independent - not quangos dressed up.

You can't provoke change by squeezing the bottom and leaving the top more or less alone - ultimately, that will provoke serious revolt. If this Government wants this society to become more "Big", then it needs to get the wealthiest to start the ball rolling and set the example. At the moment, we are encouraged to aspire to wealth as the easiest means of gaining respect and influence, but not to associate wealth with any sense of personal responsibility (except to maintain said wealth for oneself through cunning investments and tax avoidance schemes). Why be generous if it looks suspiciously as though those at the top didn't get to where they are today by being generous with either their time or their money?

rabbitstew; why do you need someone one at the top to tell you to help your neighbour? are you not capable of being a nice helpful person without a government insentive of some sort?

And not everyone at the 'top' is a selfish money grabbing bastard - just like not all poorer people are salt of the earth types -

we should aspire to do the best we can, for ourselves and the people around us.

Thatcher was accused of creating the 'me me me ' society - DC is trying to get away from that concept by encouraging us to think about, and help each other more, I personally think it's a good idea - we've had far too much state intervention over the last few years - so much so that certain sections of society needed the state to wipe their noses for them. ( mataphorically speaking)

Taxation seems to be optional for many people in the top 1%, where most of the money lies. In the words of Leona Helmsley, the American who went to jail for tax evasion, "only the little people pay taxes". In fact, for some it seems to be a matter of pride to refuse to pay tax.

For example if you have a big hedge fund, you manipulate the funds offshore in the Caymans or whatever, and only the money you need to pay for the UK overheads enters the country, so that's the only bit you pay taxes on. The rest is tax free even though you are probably using UK graduates with education paid for by the state, UK administrators on tax credits or whatever, also paid for by the state, and so on. It's a great big wheeze.

Then you can choose to make donations to worthy causes you like the look of to assuages you conscience, and build your status within society, without having to pay for annoying things like public healthcare systems, schooling and universities. And the best thing of all is that these donations can be a fraction of what you might have paid in tax, and you'll get a whopping great gong for doing it. And at dinner parties you can pontificate about the poor being essentially feckless and not entrepreneurial enough to survive in a meritocratic society.

Don't get me wrong, I have a good accountant myself, maximise my legitimate allowances and so on, but at the end of the day I would feel awkward to cheat the people around me of any kind of contribution to the social pot, purely in the name of playing some kind of status game. It's wrong. And I would like to see the pendulum swing towards people having a bit more of a conscience and paying tax becoming the decent things to do once again.

"... it needs to get the wealthiest to start the ball rolling and set the example"

That's exactly what's happening, I think you'll find. The promise to leave taxes where they are but some less-than-subtle messages about conspicuous wealth, unacceptably high salaries etc. By creating a charity pot for donations (maybe not so many donkey sanctuaries as a result) and capitalising on the national mood which is very anti designer goods/big bonuses/ general ostentation I think a revival of big-scale social conscience could be the theme of the 'teens'...

I will believe that when I see it. All I see at the moment is this rhetoric being used as a justification to talk down salaries for the bottom 90% whilst the higher tranches are able to secure further advantages. Don't be fooled.

Chil - did you catch Shaun Bailey, founder of the charity My Generation debating the big society with Polly Toynbee on the R4 Today Programme? Actually was quite interesting. @about 8.45.

No-one's against wealthy people donating, are they? But they're not going to donate more just because D Cameron wants them to.

The Big Society is a simple idea. Take local services out of council control and put them into private ownership. Why would private companies want to run schools, hospitals, old people's homes? Because they think they can make a profit from them!

That's the problem - when profit comes before the people your company has been set up to help. And that is the most dishonest part of this whole Big Soc thing. The government wants rid because the services cost too much and they don't want to raise taxes to pay for them. But if the services cost too much, why would private companies want them so badly? Because they think they can make a profit. It wouldn't be so bad if the profit was then going to be ploughed back into improving the services - but much of it isn't. It just goes into private pockets or abroad.

The other issue is who do you turn to when it all goes pear-shaped? If you have a problem with your child's Free School, you can't complain to the Local Education Authority (as it is not under their control). You have to go straight to the Education Minister. So there is less local accountablity.

I'm sure the government will claim they are setting up bodies to regulate the private companies - but mark my words - they will be largely self-regulated, ie codes of conduct and suchlike. That's a very scary scenario imo.

He wants a small state. Fair enough. But that also means small taxes and lower cost of living, so that people can afford to pay for those services.

Otherwise, it's a con.

"would private companies want to run schools, hospitals, old people's homes?"

I don't think 'running' them is the idea, is it? The voluntary organisations still do the running on a not for profit basis and finance is raised from private institutions/individuals. And no, they won't donate more because the PM says so, but look at how Geldof, Curtis, Bono and similar can get the big guns out for tackling causes close to their hearts. With a bit of leadership, celeb endorsement and popular support LiveAid made it 'cool' to fundraise for a big cause. All we need is a few big names to step forward now and commit, nudged along with a tax break or two plus lots of persuasion from the charities in question.

@jackstarb... didn't hear it but will check out the listen again thingy.

Can't see it happening in British culture, tbh.

Hmm - I think Geldof and Bono are despised more than Cameron and Clegg - although it would be a tough call.

Geldof and Bono... Also massive tax avoiders