Why would it be a good thing for the voluntary sector to take over state functions?

[CantSupinate]

I know the govt. can be inefficient and over-zealous. But my experiences of being on preschool committees was that we were a load of untrained, inexperienced and therefore fairly incompetent amateurs attempting to do what should be a professional job (managing a business and educational standards).

So every time I hear David Cameron say that the "voluntary sector" should take over more of running society, I can't figure out if he's delusional, actively trying to deceive voters so that he can bring in tax cuts for his rich buddies, or if it's truly possible that it is better for volunteers to run hospitals/schools/care homes/etc.

Does anyone want to defend Cameron and show me where he's right?

It does sound a bit barking, tbh. Most people are just too selfish/busy/not able to do voluntary work.

On a slight tangent, I think that benefit claimants should have to do a bit of vol. work every week, apart from anything else, to have something on their CV but also do do something useful. This wouldn't apply to mums with pre-schoolers, or carers.

It wouldn't be a good thing. This is just the Tory taster for what they really mean - welfare is something which ought to be voluntary and poor people should be grateful for the scraps we lob their way. (Possibly not so extreme - but certainly something dressed up along these lines).
It's terrifying, frankly.

I did a lot of voluntary work, and worked as a volunteer coordinator for years, and the fact is volunteers are great but they need to be backed up. Which costs money. At a bare minimum:

• Volunteers have expenses they shouldn't be expected to pay out of their pockets
• they need to be background checked and trained if they are going to be working with vulnerable adults or children
• they need materials to work with and a place to volunteer
• they need to promote their work so that those they are trying to assist know how to access their services

In some instances running a project or workshop with volunteers turned out to be less cost effective than simply hiring a professional.

I agree with DC that it would be great if more people volunteered their time and got involved in their community, but if it was done properly then savings to social services budgets would be minimal.

To my eye, the "advantage" of the volutary sector running things is that it is easier for the government to then cut funding if it's "not a government responsibility" - it makes it optional, and therefore expendable.

I agree with the OP that a lot of keen amateurs can be a terrible way of trying to get things done.