[shark]

It was interesting at the Peak Meet last night that the National Trust's Mike Innerdale remarks about the Big Society and how the NT were vigilant to the dangers off having unfunded responsibilities discharged to them that rightly belonged within government such as those of SSSI's. Stupidly I'd not not clicked that the Big Society could easily be used to dress up cost-cutting initiatives and whilst it creates opportunities it could overwhelm the resources and experience of volunteer type organisations. 

The BMC has written a leaflet on the subject:
 
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Download.aspx?id=750

The Big Society aim is to create a climate that empowers local people and communities that will 'take power away from politicians and give it to people'. But what does that really mean and how does it affect the BMC? Much of the BMC’s work is already the Big Society in action as outlined in this leaflet.

[Jaspersharpe]

Stupidly I'd not not clicked that the Big Society could easily be used to dress up cost-cutting initiatives

It's not being used for that, that's all it's ever been.

[slackline]

Big Society will never work (posted in Da News).

[Monk]

This Big Society thing is a total cop-out dressed up as a good thing. The governments stating that charities are well placed to take on certain roles is just so warped. Charities are funded by voluntary donations and rely on voluntary work, and in a hard times, I can't see those donations swelling. In an ideal world, charites should have no reason to exist as funding would be available from the state for all those things that charities supply. While they are great organisations who do some fantastic work, it should not be necessary and for the government to be relying on them is just wrong.

[jamiev]

it's also supposed to depend on ordinary people getting involved / volunteering more.

I was at a conference last Sept and a speaker asked 'how many people here do some sort of regular voluntary work?' - to which about 80% of hands went up. he then asked 'how many people have time to take on any more regular voluntary work?' - about 2 hands went up.

Old news but the Minister in charge of the Big Soc, Francis Maude, seemed to think that voluntary work was something that other people (but not him) should do when interviewed by Eddie Mair:
http://audioboo.fm/boos/155599-eddie-mair-putting-francis-maude-on-the-spot-what-volunteering-do-you-do

[john horscroft]

That is sheer quality Jamie - the coalitions view of volunteering - it's something other people do   

[slackline]

Thats very good, "What, wait you've asked me a question that I don't want to answer, thats not fair!"

Liverpool pulls out of "Big Society" pilot

Good points by Monk too.

[tomtom]

Putting my (rarely worn and ill fitting) Human geographers hat on...

'Big Society' is Tory spin on an old idea of Regionalism (some say localism too). It's a step further on the neo-liberal path set by governments over the last 20 years or so...

This is based on the concept that many ideas or things in life are better run locally rather than from central government. A trivial example is that here in Hull with street cleaning/pavement gritting etc.., instead of it being done ubiquitously by the council to the same level everywhere, individual council areas (represented by luurcal committee's) are given a budget, and then decide where and what they want done during the year...

The new school funding scheme (forgotten the name but where a group of parents can set up a school etc..) is along similar lines... There are quite a few other similar examples once look...

In many ways there are positives to these schemes, they give local people more involvement, control and perception of ownership of what goes on around them - which is probably a good thing. There are also conflicts between things that can be run locally, but also have national interests.. the Police for example may be one - or (where I work) flood defence, where there are important local concerns, but wider regional knock on effects...

Theres loads of negatives with this though.. for example what happens when the governers/owners of the indepenant (or whatever) school decide they've had enough and no one can be arsed to do it any more?? We've all (probably) been in clubs/societys etc.. where once enthusiastic organisers pass through it all falls apart a little... 

Big society seems to be blurred into all of the above, and at its best it allows enthusiastic well meaning local stakeholders (I may vomit at my own language at this point) to have a part of running things. But with this, is the suggestion that everything should be run by a core of volunteers - that should be run by the Govt - which is fine when its all running well, but who picks up the peices (or tab?) when it goes wrong..

I'm left leaning and at times cynical, but I dont think the govt is actually trying to do this to save money (*I could be very very wrong though!), I think some of them have a genuine liberal viewpoint and would like to see more things devolved such.

But theres also a socio-political element to this. It is in essence a very middle/upper middle class idea - maybe hatched in some college bar in Oxbridge by the left leaning members of the govt whilst wearing ruffs and strap ons - and will probably work well in affulent middle class areas. But in the middle of a large council estate will people really give a shit? Probably unintentionally, it favours the richer rather than the poorer...

[/mind dump]

TT

(NB - probably a load of contradictry shit up there - but largely based on what I've heard/read..)

[Jaspersharpe]

Probably unintentionally completely intentionally, it favours the richer rather than the poorer...

"RAH RAH RAH WE'RE GOING TO SMASH THE OIKS."

[tomtom]

Superb... I'd not seen that for ages!

[andy popp]

'Big Society' is Tory spin on an old idea of Regionalism (some say localism too). It's a step further on the neo-liberal path set by governments over the last 20 years or so...

But theres also a socio-political element to this.

The intellectual roots of this are very tangled: some (a lot probably) neo-liberal small government thinking; a dose of Phillip quasi-medieval religiosity (utter bullshit); a fair pinch of communitarianism (a la Robert Putnam and Amitai Etzioni - often quite left leaning and touted by Blair); and some good old-fashioned paternalistic One Nation Toryism.

Quite what any of Cameron et al actually believe in out of all of this? Fuck knows.

[Jaspersharpe]

Ah I see. THIS is how it works.

[dave]

I'd be up for Biggie Society.

[rginns]

Big Society = You're on your fucking own, Jack

So I'm expected to hold down a full time job which I pay taxes on, then run the buses/bin collections/street cleanliness when I get home? Are they having a laugh?

[tomtom]

Big Society = You're on your fucking own, Jack

So I'm expected to hold down a full time job which I pay taxes on, then run the buses/bin collections/street cleanliness when I get home? Are they having a laugh?

Is this the same Jack that Will heard someone talk about not shagging in Leeds U. Union?

[Andy B]

Stupidly I'd not not clicked that the Big Society could easily be used to dress up cost-cutting initiatives

It's not being used for that, that's all it's ever been.

Probably unintentionally completely intentionally, it favours the richer rather than the poorer...

Exactly.

I'm surprised at how many people are still conned by Tory rhetoric.

[mrjonathanr]

The Big Society has only ever been code for 'we're not paying any more, maybe someone else will look after you'. It's a pretense that cutbacks aren't cutbacks. They are, and the idea that like some magical rabbit out of a hat the services will be provided free of charge by some philanthropists is a straight lie.

If these unspecified 'Big Society' philanthropist-volunteers are so bloody philanthropical, I've got one question for them:
Why have they have been inactive up until now? Why do they need to be summoned by Cameron to pop into existence?

It's also an insult to all the charitable/volunteer work that is already being done which is now under a lot more pressure thanks to these scything cuts.

[slackline]

If these unspecified 'Big Society' philanthropist-volunteers are so bloody philanthropical, I've got one question for them:
Why have they have been inactive up until now? Why do they need to be summoned by Cameron to pop into existence?

Even they can't afford the time/money to volunteer (see article I linked above).

[tomtom]

If these unspecified 'Big Society' philanthropist-volunteers are so bloody philanthropical, I've got one question for them:
Why have they have been inactive up until now? Why do they need to be summoned by Cameron to pop into existence?

Thats part of the con - people have been doing volunteer work for ages, and this regionalism has been steadily increasing over the years..

It's also an insult to all the charitable/volunteer work that is already being done which is now under a lot more pressure thanks to these scything cuts.

Precisely, its also f*cking patronising to all those people who have been working away on things for years...

At the moment I give Cameron the benefit of the doubt. I think he's a misguided tool, who is out of touch with most of the country (especially now his 'common touch' pal Coulson has gone). Another interpretation is that he's really Tory old school, in the make the rich richer and f*ck everyone else scheme of things... *I reserve the right to change to this latter view in the future*

[mrjonathanr]

At the moment I give Cameron the benefit of the doubt. I think he's a misguided......

I don't -on either count. He's conning the gullible, and he knows it. It's a preposterous idea: that we'll cut left, right and centre but you won't suffer  because the spirit of the blitz will descend like some holy spirit and we'll all start pulling together so altruistically the cuts will actually be good for you.
Like all preposterous lies, the more preposterous, the more credible to the gullible.

.......Another interpretation is that he's really Tory old school, in the make the rich richer scheme of things

This is his background, his schooling, but not the One Nation patrician party of old, but the nasty arriviste Thatcherite enemy within ideology. And in a sop to kinder times, some philanthropical gobbledegook to mask the reality.

The view is cut for the good of the economy, and if some suffer, tough, it's for the greater good and they should get on their bike (but shhh.. this 2011 )

I don't doubt for a minute he'd love it to work, it'd get him out of a jam, keep the LibDems and the natives onside, so it's worth a punt.

But it's still a fiction, don't be taken in.

[andy popp]

No benefit of the doubt here either - though I think patrician is exactly right, not sure how much sympathy Thatcher would really have. There's a big gulf I think. I suspect he thinks the order of rich and poor is entirely natural.

Last year I asked a series of historians whether we'd ever had a Big Society. The unanimous answer was, at best, 1939-45, i.e. only in totally exceptional circumstances.

[jamiev]

Good piece on newsnight about the Big Society right now (Monday 22:52 for anyone who wants to view it on i-player)...I don't think paxman is too impressed

[granticus]

So I currently work for the County Council as a youth worker for the youth service, over the last year we've organised an event in partnership with voluntary sector youth orgs and a National park which involved 100 young people in volunteering.  In my small team we have engaged 6 adult volunteers in working with young people over the last 3 years.  I have a team of 8 young people regularly volunteering as 'senior members' that help out their peers at our youth clubs.  All of this done with professional support and training for all involved.  That's a lot of volunteering hours and a good description of a 'big society'. 

So here's a brief update on some youth services across the country,  Warwickshire on 3 year plan to remove the youth service, Somerset budget cuts in excess of 80%, Norfolk getting rid of youth service, Derbyshire (here's a good one for you Peak siders) NO youth service left , Surrey cutting by about a third,  Bristol 45% of staff are being sacked, Oxfordshire (Cameron's home turf) closing 20 of 27 youth centres, the list goes on and there are no positive stories. 

Volunteers need professional support, training and funding in order to be effective.  In my county the youth service is facing major budget cuts which will mean a reduction in staff, youth centres and funding to voluntary youth groups (via our Local Youth Work Network). Nationally the government has pulled the plug on funding for V-involved the youth volunteering scheme.  What does this mean?

Less support for volunteers, less places to volunteer, less projects engaging young people in volunteering and less money for small voluntary youth organisations. 

This is reality in one sector that I am familiar with but I'm sure the picture is similar across the board.

BIG SOCIETY     

[tomtom]

A long, but interesting article in the review/commentary theme is here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/can-the-big-society-work-2207352.html

"There is such a thing as society. Sometimes the state is a necessary binding agency even if it is an inefficient one. Only in Britain is there an enduring fantasy that services can improve with less investment. The day Cameron and Osborne opted for sweeping cuts was a defining one with a thousand consequences. One of them is brutally clear. The decision killed off the Big Society and no relaunches or "revolutionary chiefs" can save it as the axe falls. "

[lagerstarfish]

Sheffield city council seem to have a Big Soc plan regarding the large potholes found along most of the roads around here.

The plan is to let the holes get deep enough and then fill them with the bodies and broken bikes of the city's cyclists. This cunning plan has a minimal carbon footprint - the materials will transport themselves to where they are needed without using any fossil fuels.

Many cyclist have a keen interest in recycling and energy efficiency, so I am hopeful that they will be enthusiastic about the scheme. We have started an Opt-Out Donor Card scheme whereby only carriers of the Opt-Out cards will have their bodies and bikes removed from the holes that they fall into - the cost of these cards will be set at £3,500 to cover administrative charges and removal costs