Cameron Roles out "Big Society" plans

PM says 'big society' plans will create communities with 'oomph' and denies programme is a mask for public sector cuts

The big society ... is about liberation – the biggest, most dramatic redistribution of power from elites in Whitehall to the man and woman on the street," the prime minister said.

"And this is such a powerful idea for blindingly obvious reasons. For years, there was the basic assumption at the heart of government that the way to improve things in society was to micromanage from the centre, from Westminster. But this just doesn't work."

Now, maybe I'm just being cynical, but I'm not sure about this Big Society Idea and how its all going to work. In the last week I have lost 2 VOLUNTARY jobs, due to cutbacks. Now these charities were working with young people who were vulnerable and on the verge of getting into crime or already involved in the youth probation system. Both services now gone.

So if even charities are having to close their doors to the vulnerable in society, who is going to step in and fill the gap.

For the more affluent communities around the country, people may have more time money and inclination to start up projects, but for the less affluent it's another story.

www.guardian.co.uk...




[edit on 19-7-2010 by woodwardjnr]

[edit on 19-7-2010 by woodwardjnr]

reply to post by woodwardjnr


I don't understand woodwardjnr...how can cutback put voluntary workers out of work?

Voluntary implies no wages are being paid and absolute minimal costs to run...how can cutbacks affect volunteers?

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

I don't understand woodwardjnr...how can cutback put voluntary workers out of work?

Voluntary implies no wages are being paid and absolute minimal costs to run...how can cutbacks affect volunteers?

Even volunteers need training, insurance, uniform [sometimes], work tools...

Someone has to pay for them... Most are government funded.

There are paid volunteers... I used to be one. I got paid weakly (yes, that IS the proper spelling).

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

I don't understand woodwardjnr...how can cutback put voluntary workers out of work?

Voluntary implies no wages are being paid and absolute minimal costs to run...how can cutbacks affect volunteers?

It still costs money for charities to run, train their volunteers, carry out CRB checks. The charities work in partnership with other agencies which are cutting back, like local councils and the probation service. It's all a knock on effect. I've got another interview on Thursday for young homeless people, its one of the bigger charities in the area so may be able to ride the storm better.

I dont really understand how this concept of Big society is going to work, its going along the lines of "We've cut everything so much that we cannot provide education, policing, health services or benefits. You are on your own."

[edit on 19-7-2010 by woodwardjnr]

reply to post by wylekat


Sorry for the dumb question, but if you are being paid how is it considered volunteering. Where I live if you get paid to do something it is considered a job, not volunteer work.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Ok in the USA, people donate money or needed items to most charities in order for them to fund the things they need. Why dont you all just do that. I am always amazed when I hear Europeans talk, because the sense of government dependence is unbelievable. How did you all function before the government did everything for you?

[edit on 19-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

reply to post by ZuluChaka


I showed up when I could, and got paid whatever they could pay me.

reply to post by wylekat


That doesnt sound like much of a way to run
any sort of organisation.

LOL, I can just imagine.

Hey Homeless Hank, we would feed you but the cook didnt show up today.

By the way, we would still call what you do work, because you are getting paid. We would just say it is a pretty undependable job.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

On the one hand devolving responsibility back to communities and away from micro management in Westminster would be good..

But to be honest this has the hall marks of the council house sell off... so could be yet another way of shedding responsibilities and jobs.

I hated the last 15 years of micro management, but this could be equally as naff, so will not pass judgement until I see what lies behind the fluff.

My personal opinion is that the poor care more for the quality of society they live in, and are willing to put more effort into creating that society than the more wealthy..

reply to post by thoughtsfull

On the one hand devolving responsibility back to communities and away from micro management in Westminster would be good..

Wouldnt that be evolving responsibility. Anytime you move responsibility to the local level where it can be administered by the local population that usually leads to better (evolving) services.

Originally posted by thoughtsfull



My personal opinion is that the poor care more for the quality of society they live in, and are willing to put more effort into creating that society than the more wealthy..

True, but the wealthy have the time and the Money to pay for the qualities in their communities. They aint coming for free

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Why just the wealthy?
Why cant average individuals help out well?

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

Why just the wealthy?
Why cant average individuals help out well?

Because average individuals are working 5 days a week trying to make enough money to pay for their homes and tax. The Tax that was meant to be providing these services in the first place, unfortunately our taxes have been used to bail out bankers. Now we have to provide the services for ourselves, thats not the deal

reply to post by woodwardjnr


So you cannot give up a few candy bars or lattes a week and set aside a little money for your community? I feel sorry for you guys, you seem so disempowered.

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

So you cannot give up a few candy bars or lattes a week and set aside a little money for your community? I feel sorry for you guys, you seem so disempowered.

Like you guys do in the States with your tent cities?


Sounds like you guys want to save up a few more candy bars or lattes.

At least things arn't that bad here


[edit on 19-7-2010 by woodwardjnr]

reply to post by woodwardjnr


LOL, I live here and the only tent cities I have ever seen is when people go camping in the summer. Not saying they dont exist, but I have never seen one.

If there are people living in tents here, chances are some avg individual donated the money for them or gave them one of their own tents.

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
reply to post by thoughtsfull

 

On the one hand devolving responsibility back to communities and away from micro management in Westminster would be good..

Wouldnt that be evolving responsibility. Anytime you move responsibility to the local level where it can be administered by the local population that usually leads to better (evolving) services.

Your right, bad choice of words...
devolve from one to allow the other to evolve..

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Just watched your video. Not sure what the big deal is. I would hardly call 60 or 70 men living in tents a tent city. Maybe a tent village.

We are in the middle of a huge recession. You have to understand there will be some of this and most of the guys they interviewed appeared to be intoxicated, which leads me to believe they have drug or alcohol addictions.

Nobody ever said freedom would be easy!

I am always amazed when I hear Europeans talk, because the sense of government dependence is unbelievable.

Agreed, if it wasent so true it would actually be kind of funny. It's actually kind of ridiculous, they are like little children who can't seem to grow up.