Camerons speech in South London this morning, anyone else see it? ~I thought was brilliant.

[crystal123]

David Cameron made a speech in South London this morning outlining his Big Society and not the Big State. I thought it very good, and he came across a lot better than he did on the TV debate. What do others think?

Did he do three times better than on the debate?

Big society, not big state? No thanks, gimmicks leave me cold. How can Cameron create an army of volunteers without masses of paperwork and bureaucracy?

None of the mainstream parties impress me.

Big society = optional welfare. Only those whose household income is high enough to free one partner from work would be able to take part in this "army of volunteers" thing.
What they want is some paternalistic model of society where the good, clever, rich, middle class people deign to help out those who are really struggling (read lazy and feckless) and feel really good about themselves. But only if they feel like it, because it's all voluntary.
It's just nonsense.

only in Britain can volunteering be seen as negative and a class issue. get a grip.

Dollius - that's extraordinarily cynical. I do quite a bit of voluntary work in my childrens' school. I don't do because it makes me feel like a better person I do it because without help from the parents the children would not get to do any one to one reading more than once or twice a term. Some of these children don't have the luxury of parents who bother to hear them read at home. All offers of help at our school are hugely appreciated by the teachers.

Do you have an alternative? I'm curious to know what it might be, especially as, let's face it, this country is completely skint at the moment - there's going to be very little spare money floating round for the next few years whoever wins the election.

I hope you are getting paid by the house for these posts crystal123

Proper cynical it may be, but I'm in agreement with Dollius.

Volunteering because you want to, you believe in something, bloody excellent.

Volunteering as a tool of government policy - exactly what Dollius said. Absolutely laden with value judgements, the deserving and the undeserving poor, and 'good' people helping out the 'bad' ones.

The issue isn't about individuals volunteering, it's about the government expecting it, relying on it, and pretending it will sort things out in any kind of fair or equitable way, because it won't.

i know many people who would love to volunteer but the infrastructure is not in place. Government involvement could help quite a lot with that. It can also introduce young people and students to careers they might not have considered. There are many, many good reasons for a government to promote it.

but i agree that the OP is a bit suspicious.

Crystal - what morningpaper said. Any chance you could give it a rest?

Surely most people who want to volunteer, are volunteering?

As dollius says, with mortgages these days, both partners usually need to work. And if not, I mean, I'm a SAHM, but i can't do stuff daytime as I have a small bundle of pre-schooler energy to try and control...unless this scheme is going to involve free childcare? No, I didn't think so...
And AFAIK, you can't volunteer on JSA because then you're not 'available for work', right?

And as DH has just pointed out, if the Tories do get in and start rolling back state support/ safety nets, we're all going to have to work even harder at our jobs, and have even less time for volunteering.

But apart from that, the 'sod-off-and-do-it-yourself' policy has a lot going for it, and I may in fact instigate it in this house.

Want a better school? Sod off and do it yourself.
Want more police? Sod off and do it yourself....

You want your bottom wiped again, DD? Sod off and do it yourself.
You want a beer from the fridge, DH?... Yup, this could really be the way forwards...

if taxes went down, we could theoretically work less and have more time to volunteer.

Who has the kind of job where you can just decide to work less?

In the actual real world, you either have a job which pays by the hour - in which case you probably haven't got enough slack in your budget to reduce your hours - or you have a salaried job, where making any attempt to reduce your hours makes you 'not a team player' and first in line for redundancy.
The modern world, eh?!

"Big society = optional welfare. Only those whose household income is high enough to free one partner from work would be able to take part in this "army of volunteers" thing.
What they want is some paternalistic model of society where the good, clever, rich, middle class people deign to help out those who are really struggling (read lazy and feckless) and feel really good about themselves. But only if they feel like it, because it's all voluntary.
It's just nonsense. "

I have to disagree, were under a conservative council ATM and this has been rolled out across each neighbourhood getting residents to volunteer to sit on many panels deciding how and what they want in their areas and it's working extremely well, people turn up as hecklers and end up signing up to do 'something' (youth projects, pensioner aid, cooking classes for children, deciding where the budget goes on clean up etc) they point out many things that local councillors and officers aren't aware of and become part of a bigger picture.

These volunteers aren't replacing the professionals they are helping with ideas and a little time, most work full time and do it after hours once a week or even once a month, it's actually made a change to my area.

It does work and it has got the 'community' to pull together, especially for the local youths, or yobs as some refer to them, they are off the streets and enjoying themselves.

I'm actually fed up with people leaving everything to someone else, closing their door and basically barracading themselves inside and then whinning when their area goes downhill.

' Big government' isn't working, community projects are.

I'm with the other suspicious minds - is the OP in conservative central office or just a freelancer for the cause?

(Or a volunteer? And if so, why aren't you out on some community project helping the deserving poor? And ignoring the non-deserving poor, no doubt...)

Please do not let us end up like the US where the poor have to be fed, treated and helped at the behest of over-worked, underfunded organisations.

"I'm with the other suspicious minds - is the OP in conservative central office or just a freelancer for the cause? "

Why is it when a conservative poster puts up a post about something good that the conservatives have that the labourites deflect the actual issue by accusing them of being in the pay of the conservative party?

I myself have had this accusation lobbed at me by some well known labourites on here and quite frankly it's getting very old and boring.

Obviously the battle lines are being drawn were two weeks away from an election, people want to show their affiliations and party in a good light and show the bad policies from the others.

Can we please keep to a debate and not mud slinging to try to close down the threads.

The OP has contributed 38 posts, all on the same topic, over the course of about two weeks

I am all for social responsibility I firmly believe people should try their hardest to provide for themselves and for their own

I also believe a person should be integrated and engaged in the community through, for example, volunteer work

I also think the welfare state is a good is thing, life is often unfair and people can through no fault of their own be unable to provide, and why should they not get help to live with dignity
of course there are the feckless and irresponsible but I don't see how writing off their offspring, by cutting off any chance they might have to change their lives, is of any benefit to the rest of society

being left at the mercy of a charity, often subscribing to 'a moral code' who will not help the ones seen as undeserving is scary

reminds me of when Paxman was on 'who do you think you are' and he found out what happened to one of his ancestors deemed to immoral to receive church help

The state providing for the people is obviously expensive and has to be funded through taxation, it is a choice people will have to make as to what kind of society they want to live in
I understand the argument that is often made along the lines of 'I want to spend my money my way not the state' but it still comes down to a basic ideological view point

atlantis - note that I'm not slinging mud at you, I'm slinging it at crystal123 for the reasons morningpaper states.

And please don't presume that I'm labourite because I criticise the tories. For all you know, I could be much further left or right of them.

good post sfxmum

"The OP has contributed 38 posts, all on the same topic, over the course of about two weeks "

PMSL, MP, your counting !

"atlantis - note that I'm not slinging mud at you, I'm slinging it at crystal123 for the reasons morningpaper states."

No I know, I didn't mean to make it sound like you were having a go at me, it's just happened to me too. And some people might be trolls/ plants, but a lot of people are just very excited/ nervous about the election and do want to share.

"And please don't presume that I'm labourite because I criticise the tories. For all you know, I could be much further left or right of them. "

I didn't mean to flag you as a labourite, just some of the labourite (resistance movement ) are heavily on the boards (which I can understand being in 3rd place and all ) and are velocirapting the conservative posters.

"
Please do not let us end up like the US where the poor have to be fed, treated and helped at the behest of over-worked, underfunded organisations. "

I disagree with this statement (or plea). Non-government organisations (churches, etc.) have been helping people a lot longer and possibly more effectively than the state has, for millenia. Many U.S. charities are incredibly well funded too.
It's a bit of a tangent, but Bill Gates' foundation is doing a lot more for public health in Africa than any government.