Any Tory voters think Cameron's "Big Society" idea was a good one?

[VodkaAndTonic]

From The Guardian here:

Another senior and normally loyal Tory MP complained that Cameron's big idea for the campaign ? "the Big Society", under which armies of volunteers would come together to tackle the country's ills ? was "complete crap".

"We couldn't sell that stuff on the doorstep. It was pathetic. All we needed was a simple message on policy. We could have won a majority if we had not had to try to sell this nonsense."

Do any Tory voters:

a) think Big Society is a good idea
b) think it is a vote winner
c) think it is "complete crap"?

oh claig, claig - just when we were playing so nicely.

Pretty outrageous, though. But then again I'm quoting hearsay!

The bigger society sounds like media fluff to me, and is actually quite patronising to the huge number of parents already heavily involved in their chilren's schools already for one.
Starting a school, hmmm. Is that possible already, given that is has always been possible to home school?
I personally would rather the ear-marked money be used to improve the existing schools where most children currently attend and are likely to continue to attend.

Haven't read the whole thread, but what happens if you are in a community where people won't volunteer?

Dh has been chairman of an out of school club for a number of years: he rescued it from the point of bankruptcy to the current situation where it is now on a sound financial footing. However, this involved a vast amount of work for him and one or two of the other board members, for which, becasue it is a limited company with charitable status, he is not allowed to get paid. Therefore, all this work was at the expense of him building his own business, which he was trying to do at the same time.

Over the last year, he and the other board members have been trying to get other parents on to the board (so that there could be some sort of handover) - without success. They are going to get a shock when, in the next month, the board steps down and the service has to shut down - just before the summer holidays - as it is not legally allowed to continue without parent board members .

Ironically, our own ds hasn't been for nearly a year (except for oen week when we were away). Dh was doing all of this out of a sense of community. However, the other "users/parents" seem to think that they are "entitled" to the service and do no realise that they need to contribute to the running of it (despite numberous communications explaining that to them).

I must say this whole 'big society' rubbish made me laugh out loud when I heard it.

Its an excellent example of why our country should not be run by a bunch of millionaires with no experience of anything other than being very rich.

In effect though, the only people who will have the time and effort to commit to these ideas will be the unemployed. They will also have to be well educated etc, the best members of our society.
So what Cameron is proposing is that hes going to make all our best people unemployed, make them run all our essential services and not pay them. (Or perhaps this is some rare honesty? shudder!)

Does anyone else think Lod Ashcroft looks like david walliams in the OP link?
At first I though it was a spoof.

Yup - dh could only "afford" to do what he did 'cos I was working full time and therefore bringing the money in - even though I was working in a toxic (mentally) envirnment which for my own health I needed to leave. However, when I got (thankfully) made redundant, it meant that there was no money coming into the household 'cos he had not had the time to build up his business as he had intended

No - a shite idea

hmm yup the idea is either the most stupid thing Ive ever heard, or the scariest.

Cameron wants to make everyone unemployed and on benefits!

The people who voted for him were definitely stupid tho (sorry all you tory people) (but its true). Luckily some people voted Lib dem so hopefully they will absorb some sense. Perhaps by osmosis.

oh do fuck off Sessypoos.

sethstarkaddersmum - that was a bit harsh. Sessypoos wasn't out of order

but it wasn't exactly a reasoned argument either.

I mean, you can criticise anyone by making up a lot of stuff and saying that is what they think, and then saying how shit it is.

Listen people - there is mania afoot. Let us resist it. Sooo

Did anyone see the article saying thingy (hopeless with names, sorry,) emerged from talks with a folder, covered in post-it notes with key ideas on them?

"Big Society" was on one of the post-it notes - which implies it really is very close to DC's heart, and one the Conservatives do want to run with. Which implies there's stuff behind it - and was, arguably, poorly communicated.

HumphreyCobbler, I voted Tory, but Sessypoos was only expressing her view. She has exaggerated her point for effect, but she doesn't deserve to be told to f off. She was only expressing an opinion.

Prettybird, feel like someone should say a great big "Well Done" to you and your Dh for all your time and commitment.

I think that lots of people do want to help out, but lack the confidence to do so. It can be frustrating though when it feels that you're being underappreciated, but you have to remind yourself of all the people you and your dh have helped.

Thanks Rawchocolate

Anyway, the letters to the parents telling the service will be closing unless some of them step forward and volunteer have now gone out.

Time will tell if the parents actually realise that it is not a threat - it is statement of fact.

A shame 'cos dh put a lot of effort into getting it back onto a sound financial footing. And many parents rely on it in order to work.

Prettybird, well done to you both too! I wonder though - you say your husband was not allowed to get paid because its a charity, but charities do employ people. (A friend worked in HR for a charity, and we were quite amazed how much the CE paid himself.) So perhaps it would be worth raising this with the charity? Sounds like he has done a lot of good, and that perhaps there is a need for a coordinator. How is the club funded?

As for the Cons, I think we might see more of this happening depending on what their actual plan is for this 'big society'.. No-one actually know what he means, even the conservative supporters posting on here (and I know MNers are an intelligent and knowledgeable bunch!)
The only idea seems to be that they want people to work for free - from their manifesto the people they especially have in mind are young people, jobhunters, SAHMs. But I think people should be financially supported (and rewarded) for their good work. As Claig has described, our society is structured to ensure this and that important services are therefore provided.

As for sethstarkaddersmum - if you dont like to debate this you are quite welcome to 'leave' yourself.
HumphreyCobbler - I think it was very well reasoned and based on the facts available to me. If you feel I have missed something you are welcome to enlighten me! But you have not done this, both of you have only insulted me personally .
Claig, thanks for sticking up for me. I probably shouldnt have said all of you were stupid, even if I did appologise in the same line

Sessypoos I took no offence at the fact that you said we were stupid. What you meant were that we had been misled, and I think you have a point and it is still an open question, and we will have to wait and see what happens. The more I think about this 'Big Society' the more I think it is a euphemism for 'Big Cuts'. We know we are in a terrible financial crisis and they have to sell the cuts that they will make. They are saying it's not what the state can do for you, but what you can do for the state. It's not what you are entitled to, but what your responsibilities are. So it is obvious that they will cut and force people to earn their benefits. If people don't "volunteer" they may find their benefits cut. So I think you are essentially right in your analysis.

There are lots of good ideas in the world, not so many good executions of them. Delivery is everything.

The idea itself is good "People should be involved on their communitites", but in a rather trivial way like "We want to reduce crime" is. The execution is what matters.

I am happy for the conservatives to get everyone working, as long as they pay them at least the minimum wage. But this doesnt fit with their ideal of a smaller state! The Lib dems had good policies on this, to review the benefit system to remove the barriers that stop people taking up work. This is certainly a problem; I had a friend who volunteered for years while her children were at nursery, she was so good they offered her a job, but she found because of the way benefits are withdrawn that she couldnt afford to work part time !?? Even though this would have reduced how much she claimed. It seemed perverse.

Claig, I thought it was stupid to believe what politicians say without checking the policies. Cameron said a lot of silken words, but I couldnt find matching policies. Hence yes I think he did mislead a lot of the people who voted for him on vague promises. I felt the Lib Dems had all the good policies, and the Tories had all the good spin. So I am hopeful that the coalition will produce good results.

Sessypoos - dh checked this out with both Companies House and the Care Commission. Becasue it is a "a limited company with charitable status" and he is a Board Member and therefore a Direcotr of the company, he is not allowed to take any remuneration. And it is a legal requirement for them to have board members who are parents.

What he has done is replace the previous manager (of course they can employ people - it is just the Board Members who can't be paid) with a much more effective one who should be able to "run" the service with minimal input from the board (after the wonderful training that dh has given her )

But she does need to have board members - so if no other parents step forward, then the service will shut down.

(BTW - the service coudn't afford dh if he were to charge a commercial rate )

I am just slightly concerned that Cameron's "Big Society" doesn't recognise the reality of the current over-stressed work environment and that it assumes that people have free time to orgnaise some of the things he is proposing.

I do like the idea of taking personaal responsibility etc (as he talked about last night in front of No.10): but again, am concerned as to how that will work in practice (viz: the fraud of people claiming the child care element of WFTC, getting the money direct and then a) not actually using the service and/or b) not paying their bills )

I think it is a shocking idea. I have worked in the private sector and the charitable sector and I was shocked by the inefficienvy of the charitable sector, and I don't mean unpaid, voluntary sector, we talking top whack salaries for executives working for charities. But it was still incredibly inefficient. Probably because there is no market imperative driving things. When I was in the private sector, I had a boss who set targets and expected results and no excuses. In the charitable sector, it was amazingly vague, unfocused, no targets, no deadlines (or rather, deadlines would just slide and slide and slide).

Assuming people actually do come forward to volunteer, I fear for the consequences on public services. If you think local services are inefficient now, wait until you've got a load of volunteers running things.

Disaster.

One example: I was working for a charity and we wanted to create a pin that would be sold for a quid (like Mcmillan daffodils or pink ribbon for cancer and loads of other examples). Forget the fact that the market is saturated with pins, ribbons, badges etc., I was gobsmacked about how many meetings were called to discuss and debate and consider the idea. When it finally got the green light, i expected the team responsible to turn up within a few days weeks with a prototype. It never happened. The team was incapable or unwilling to pick up the phone, call a design agency and brief a designer to come up with a little pin. After months of meetings, we missed the deadline to get the pins in the shops and post offices for the season we had planned, good job too, though, cos the pins were not ready in time. The whole thing was chaos.

In the private corporation I worked for, the team in question would simply have been blasted by their boss and told to get a rocket under their arses from day 1. And make no mistake, the delays were not a consequence of understaffing. Quite the contrary. The charity had very well staffed teams, decent budgets, partnerships with private companies and gorgeous offices in a big block south of the river where there are loads of charities.

Popscotch, that is a fascinating insight. I think you make a very good point about a lack of urgency and market imperative.

I agree with Popscotch that it will be disastrous, if it goes ahead. Surely not though? Steve Hilton's head will roll and Big Society will die the death. My experience in the voluntary sector makes me think that the same hardcore of motivated volunteers will get involved and lots of people will stand on the sidelines. I organised a NCT friends group mummy and baby coffee morning for five years after my DS1 was born, it was not a particularly onerous job, it just required a few emailsto ask if people would be willing to hold a coffee morning at their home, send reminders, let the whole group know where and when etc. I did it very happily for 5 years, it was a big group, everyone really appreciated it, a weekly get together, with babies, great support for new mums, it was a revolving circle, people came when they could. I did not attend every week, of course, but I was conscientious about making sure there was a venue every week.

When my DS1 went to school and after 5 years of organising, I sent an email asking if someone would take over from me. I did not get a single response. The group died.

Cameron and his lot need to realise that volunteering is anaethema to some people, even if they appreciate the fruits of those who do volunteer and there are others who will keep on giving and giving their time. My experience with PTA etc suggests it is very hard to motivate people even when they or their children are direct beneficiaries. God knows how you can motivate people when it's for the wider community good.