Thread: Cameron's BS: What's it all about?

As we've seen with the threatened closure of libraries, changes to the NHS, and the knives hanging over the BBC World Service, Radio 7, Radio 3 etc. Cameron's "big society" in broad terms is for government to step out of its current obligations and have things run by community groups instead.
Basically "big society" is the total abrogation of government responsibility if it can get away with it.

I'd suggest that the first thing to do would be to privatise parliament, flog off the Houses of Parliament because that's prime real estate bang in the middle of London, then retrench Cameron because his position is redundant.
Belgium proves that a country can survive perfectly happily without a government, so how about it?

To my mind it basically means services being run not by professionals who have worked their entire career in the subject and know it back to front, but instead a bunch of interfering busy-bodies who think they better how to run things because they once saw a documentary and read and article in the Daily Mail.

It seems to be fashionable to question what the Big Society is but it seems pretty clear.

It's a desire and will to take responsibility for local matters and inititives away from Central Government and hand it over to the people that will run and benefit from it.

Doesn't seem to difficult a concept to understand.

Will it work? I don't know but it sounds like an ideal that should be attempted. Reducing central Governments mass in favour of less bureaucratic, locally targeted and operated inititives seems logical to me.

Originally Posted by skc

It's a desire and will to take responsibility for local matters and inititives away from Central Government and hand it over to the people that will run and benefit from it.

Doesn't that desire and will exist regardless of government, and hasn't it done so for as long as anyone can remember?

Putting an ideological label on something, along with a structure and a government department, only appears to add a layer of central government influence & control.

When one is asked to volunteer, is one still a volunteer?

The "Big Society" is a beautiful idea in theory, but the reality is it'll never work without a massive amount of funding. It's all very well for Doris to help out in her local community now and then, but when it's expected of her and she has to pay for her petrol, public liability insurance, CRB checks, training... well she's going to question whether it's worth it.

It's a sop to cover the fact that massive and barbaric cuts are being made to basic public services like libraries, Surestart & public toilets because of a flawed ideological campaign by Cameron, backed up by his tame puppet Clegg.

A former conservative minister - David Mellor - has described the plans as going down like a lead balloon (source) , and even the PM has admitted over the weekend that they'll need to look carefully at how this BS is funded.

In a few years we'll look back on this in the same way we regard John Major's "Back To Basics" crusade.

Arrows. I thought you didn't understand what it was all about, yet understand the structure and ramifications?

I must admit, I understand the principles but not the details yet it seems that we are ready to condemn this without looking at it rationally. Is that because it's Cameron behind it?

We are in a serious economic mess and yes, there are going to be stringent cuts. Central Government is bloated and cannot be sustained at current levels.

How do we manage this transition so end users have more responsibility for their own destiny rather than relying on the state all the time to wipe their arses. If this isn't the answer, what is?

Ah:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news...rvices-swindon
Swindon Intermediate Care Centre Commissioned by NHS Swindon and Swindon Borough Council is part of one of the first Mutual Pathfinders, leading the way for many other public sector entrepreneurs who want to take ownership of the services they provide. John Lewis Partnership is sharing its experience of employee ownership with the Swindon pathfinder to help it develop its plan to become a mutual.
Found it.

"Big Society" is about forming mutual societies from existing social services rather than quangos.
...so that at a later point they can all be flogged off via dedemutualization later. It's an idea that worked so well in the colonies, that Britian wants to have a go at it.

Originally Posted by skc

I must admit, I understand the principles but not the details yet it seems that we are ready to condemn this without looking at it rationally. Is that because it's Cameron behind it?

This is very much Cameron's policy so obviously he personally will be the focus whether it succeeds or fails.

That's not the reason for me questioning it though. My concern is that it's something dreamt up by an advertising firm to "sell" an idea in an attempt to establish a "legacy" for Cameron as PM, but the idea has no substance, or is so woolly that it is meaningless, or is simply a label stuck on something that people around the country do already.

I seem to remember that the BS was raised as a policy by Cameron during the general election but, because it was not explained well or it received such a poor reception, it was dropped very quickly by the Tories. Clearly that didn't deter the PM.

"There are things we are already doing we are trying to re-badge as big society - trying to show that they are in line with the big society," said one civil servant in a large Whitehall department, who did not want to be named.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12163624

Sir Stephen Bubb, who heads the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, said charities and social enterprises were already having to make redundancies and scale back their work. He told Sky News: "You can hardly build a bigger society if the very people at the heart of that vision are cutting back on the work they do."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12443396

I thought the idea was to make some public sector workers redundant, forcing them onto Jobseekers Allowance & then make them return to their jobs as volunteers to earn their dole?

I'm not argueing for the sake of it but really am trying to figure out what we are saying here.

Initially we start out by claiming nobody understands what it's all about, then it's woolly vapour ware dreamt up by a PR company, then it's adding another layer of government, then it's sucessfully being practiced already?

All this by an intelligent and normally rational forum member???

I refuse to dismiss this out of hand before understanding what is possible to be achieved and what the benefit would be. I know people are upset because of shrinking budgets while Central Government is seeking to reduce it's influence but in the current economic situation, this was always going to be the case.

Are we all being as objective here as we should be?

I just think it's a bad case of wishful thinking if you think that teams of people are going to volunteer to take over / run public services - even if still government funded. Most are struggling with working some of the longest hours in Europe, and with some of the longest commutes to pay some of the biggest mortgages, who's got time for all that?

Originally Posted by Mark

...who's got time for all that?

Soon, 490000 people will have

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ument-job-cuts

Originally Posted by skc

Initially we start out by claiming nobody understands what it's all about...

I began by asking what is the "Big Society". I'm not clear, and I'm not sure how many people are. Given that it's in the news it might be worth talking about.

Originally Posted by skc

...then it's woolly vapour ware dreamt up by a PR company...

It appears to be more marketing than substance i.e. the wish to sell Cameron as the man with the "big idea", rather than the man leading a government intent on implementing damaging cutbacks.

Originally Posted by skc

...then it's adding another layer of government...

It appears to be government stepping in to areas where people already do great voluntary & community work. That's adding another layer.

Originally Posted by skc

...then it's sucessfully being practiced already?

No. There is good voluntary and community work going on all around the country, that was being done long before the BS was talked about and will continue after the BS has been forgotten. It doesn't need a label stuck on it, particularly by the same goverment that is cutting back on the funding that helps deliver that existing work.

Originally Posted by Mark

I just think it's a bad case of wishful thinking if you think that teams of people are going to volunteer to take over / run public services - even if still government funded. Most are struggling with working some of the longest hours in Europe, and with some of the longest commutes to pay some of the biggest mortgages, who's got time for all that?

Ahh, at last. An objective view.

Is that what the Big Society is? Just expecting people to give their time free and run services that previously were operated by Public workers. If that is the case then it hasn't got a cat in hells chance but I don't think it is.

I think there is an element of community co-operation, in a similar way to a School Board of Governers, but that must be only part of it.

I thought the big society was about decentralizing government, devolving central power and giving local communities more say in how they operate local services. The introduction of co-operatives, mutually operated services and enterprises.

Basically, taking local decision making power away from the faceless buearucrats in Whitehall and putting it in the hand of people it directly influences.

I know that I trust the real people that make up the Governers of my Local School more than the sometimes senseless and irrelevant dictates that filter down from some working group or think tank in Westminster so am wondering whether this can be expanded. It might work and it might not but I would like to know more about this. After all, isn't this "Power to the People Citizen"

Originally Posted by Mark

To my mind it basically means services being run not by professionals who have worked their entire career in the subject and know it back to front, but instead a bunch of interfering busy-bodies who think they better how to run things because they once saw a documentary and read and article in the Daily Mail.

So basically like local government where all the councillors are people who are bored now that they're retired and want to interfere in things which they have little knowledge of.

Originally Posted by Daniel

So basically like local government where all the councillors are people who are bored now that they're retired and want to interfere in things which they have little knowledge of.

Another sweeping generalisation

Are you sure you're not a closet Daily Mail reader

Originally Posted by skc

Ahh, at last. An objective view.

Is that what the Big Society is? Just expecting people to give their time free and run services that previously were operated by Public workers. If that is the case then it hasn't got a cat in hells chance but I don't think it is.

I think there is an element of community co-operation, in a similar way to a School Board of Governers, but that must be only part of it.

I thought the big society was about decentralizing government, devolving central power and giving local communities more say in how they operate local services. The introduction of co-operatives, mutually operated services and enterprises.

Basically, taking local decision making power away from the faceless buearucrats in Whitehall and putting it in the hand of people it directly influences.

I know that I trust the real people that make up the Governers of my Local School more than the sometimes senseless and irrelevant dictates that filter down from some working group or think tank in Westminster so am wondering whether this can be expanded. It might work and it might not but I would like to know more about this. After all, isn't this "Power to the People Citizen"

Tbh after a personal experience I had with a rather ignorant moron of a school governor at a school I don't agree.

There are good governors and bad governors and good and bad faceless people in thinktanks.

Originally Posted by skc

Another sweeping generalisation

Are you sure you're not a closet Daily Mail reader

I probably shouldn't be posting at work. Can you email me @ daniel.**********@*******shire.gov.uk ?

It might be a generalisation, but it comes from personal experience

The main problem is the people who don't work for a living and actually have time for this, and the motivation to actually do it, quite often have extreme views at odds with the majority of the population - local government does suffer from the same problem.

Which is why you have traffic calming, one way systems etc imposed on you, because the anti-car nuts are ruling the way for example.