Bolitics The New Condem Government

[TrentVilla]

So the plan is to sack someone doing a worthwhile job in the public sector then get someone or a number of people to that job for **** all. Maybe the guy they've just put on the dole would be up for it. Hey theres an idea maybe we should all work for **** all.

Well while we await further details yes that about sums it up as far as I can see.

Next up will be making voluntary work compulsory in order to claim benefits such as dole money. Thus forcing those previously in paid jobs to do the same or similar jobs for their dole payment rather than a wage.

[drat01]

Do you not think you’re over analysing a facetious remark?

Over analysing?

The PM - a complete and utter twunt IMO - tried to be clever with a comment where he likened himself to someone in a 1970/80's kids programme. The Own Goal being that the person he likened himself to was a bully / thief / racist and this during a announcement on Big Society.

You have to laugh - hence the smiley things - but sorry if it showed Cameron up in a bad light

[Ads]

I have no problem with people holding their views, I just feel it a shame that what was a decent discussion about policy got side tracked by something that isn’t particularly important or interesting in comparison.

[Chindie]

'Big S ciety

Big G vernment'.

That had me giggling over the news, it's so childish.

[drat01]

I have no problem with people holding their views, I just feel it a shame that what was a decent discussion about policy got side tracked by something that isn’t particularly important or interesting in comparison.

Of course - the fact that he made the "joke" during the announcement of this policy - the fact that if this had been anyone from the "other lot" would have been straight on to VT to point it out - the fact that even though the smiley things showed it was a funny - we all know that things like that re anyone out of Cameron's "team" is a no-no.

Anyway back to this Big Society idea that has little / no substance. The monies for that are supposedly coming from Dormant Bank accounts. A stolen idea from Labour? In 2005 Brown then as Chancellor said that this money could be used for community projects. Interesting that at the time the comments from the Tory party were - shall we say less than encouraging of the idea.

The Telegraph at the time said

Gordon Brown is plotting a stealth raid on more than £400 million of money left in dormant bank accounts.

link

The difference is that Labour were pin pointing these funds at certain ideas, whereas the party in power are seemingly going do a loaves and fishes and use it for so many things.

[Ads]

Drat, I don’t buy this “other lot” argument at all.

I think it’s best if we try and leave rabid political bias at the front door of this thread, right next to the shoes, so we don’t get the carpet dirty. We’re not newspapers and we’re not politicians so there is nothing to be gained from party zealotry in here. I mean calling me one of Cameron's team, really Drat, is there any need for it on VT?

[thecraft]

It could be worse, he could be on about Big Country!

[avfc89]

Oh god! Not the Big Society...

Care to expand

Richard, I've made my view clear many times about this vacuous idea. It seems the Tories don't want to have responsibility of modern Government only the power it possesses. Hopefully this idea doesn't grow any further than hot air.

[blandy]

As a thought, floated for consideration, and potentially to be given some detail, it's not something that I can see is "wrong".

Without detailed knowledge, but just from general thought, I'm sure there may well be some areas where voluntary organisations, or individuals could do things currently done by local or national gov't.

I even think there could on occasion be benefit in it, for all concerned.

I'm not at all sure that as a national policy it is worth so much, but as something that informs decisions it needn't be bad.

It's not difficult to find examples of people grouping together to achieve something, where they have a collective interest in getting a result, and often their motivation to do something for themselves or their community or environment is a big plus in getting the task done well and efficiently, whereas councils can be inefficient and ineffective in comparison.

The co-operative movement kind of worked and works on those lines, doesn't it? and that was something that came from the "Labour" (of old) movement and ethos.

People grouping together to sell their cloth, lend each other money via building societies, people involved having a direct say in the running of their organisation. There is a way, started in india, for people to lend money to other people who do not have access to traditional banks, because they have no collateral, and it turns out the beneficiaries of these loans are more likely to pay them back, than traditional bank borrowers.

There are people who collectively revitalise housing stock, who care for parks and gardens, who do all kinds of good things.

The principle isn't wrong, certainly not always, and an ambition by Cameron to encourage expansion of and to support this kind of thing is probably a good thing for the country and the government.

However, it can't be a centrally dictated "replacement" for anything if set up with a timetable and controlled by Government.

My suspscion is that whatever Cameron's intent, the implementation will be rather different. I suspect it is likely to be a cover for chopping things "well if they want a kiddies playground, let them make one, the council will get rid of our playground, sack the caretaker/gardener and save 20 grand a year on wages and sell the land".

I quite like the idea of less central gov't control - one of Labour's and previous tory gov'ts weaknesses was control freak behaviour - wanting to dictate from London instead of letting people in whatever region or City decide what to do and how to do it.

note: I am most definitely not a tory supporter.

[drat01]

I mean calling me one of Cameron's team, really Drat, is there any need for it on VT?

Read the flipping post will you - I did not call you one of "Cameron's lot" - that reference was to the political party that he belongs to. Unless you are a Tory party member.

-------------------------

Pete, you make some fair points and agreed the principle is not wrong. Its about the delivery and the expectations and most importantly at what cost - not just direct but what will affect. This whole dormant bank accounts can never pay for all of the things being talked about. Add to that checks needed for these schemes and then we are into negative funding already.

In a speech in Liverpool, the prime minister said groups should be able to run post offices, libraries, transport services and shape housing projects.

This is a headline grabber with little substance. Unless of course it is a replacement for "real" public services

[TrentVilla]

An interesting development with the 'Big Society' policy/scheme call it what you will, this evening it has emerged that the scheme is for England only yet the money to fund it from old accounts is coming from UK not English accounts.

That will upset a few people no doubt.

[drat01]

and so it should do - its another ill thought out policy that this Gvmt is trying to force out on the UK public without care or consideration. They are really showing their inexperience or is it vindictiveness?

[blandy]

...some fair points and agreed the principle is not wrong. Its about the delivery and the expectations and most importantly at what cost - not just direct but what will affect. This whole dormant bank accounts can never pay for all of the things being talked about. Add to that checks needed for these schemes and then we are into negative funding already.

In a speech in Liverpool, the prime minister said groups should be able to run post offices, libraries, transport services and shape housing projects.

This is a headline grabber with little substance...

It probably is a headline grabber, because it doesn't seem thought through - more an aspiration, or an ideal he has.

On post offices, there are a lot of small towns and villages where they've lost post offices, pubs and small shops, and if people could be given help/guidance as to how to run them themselves as a co-op type arrangement, then that's a good thing - rebuilding communities and bringing places back to life.

On the cost, if it's going to be cost negative, then if it was announced as "We're going to spend X amount to help people to re-vitalise villages, old housing stock, community centres, such as pubs etc..." then a lot of people would probably approve (though ask the usual questions about what's going to be cut to pay for it?).

But as you say, I think it's an idea without much detail, really. It could be good, it could be a mask behind which the knife is wielded to things that need protection.

We'll just have to wait and see if the nasty party is just as nasty as ever, or if the influence of the Lib Dems and the more central tories keps the nastiness in check.

[peterms]

As a thought, floated for consideration, and potentially to be given some detail, it's not something that I can see is "wrong".

Without detailed knowledge, but just from general thought, I'm sure there may well be some areas where voluntary organisations, or individuals could do things currently done by local or national gov't.

I even think there could on occasion be benefit in it, for all concerned.

I'm not at all sure that as a national policy it is worth so much, but as something that informs decisions it needn't be bad.

It's not difficult to find examples of people grouping together to achieve something, where they have a collective interest in getting a result, and often their motivation to do something for themselves or their community or environment is a big plus in getting the task done well and efficiently, whereas councils can be inefficient and ineffective in comparison.

The co-operative movement kind of worked and works on those lines, doesn't it? and that was something that came from the "Labour" (of old) movement and ethos.

People grouping together to sell their cloth, lend each other money via building societies, people involved having a direct say in the running of their organisation. There is a way, started in india, for people to lend money to other people who do not have access to traditional banks, because they have no collateral, and it turns out the beneficiaries of these loans are more likely to pay them back, than traditional bank borrowers.

There are people who collectively revitalise housing stock, who care for parks and gardens, who do all kinds of good things.

The principle isn't wrong, certainly not always, and an ambition by Cameron to encourage expansion of and to support this kind of thing is probably a good thing for the country and the government.

However, it can't be a centrally dictated "replacement" for anything if set up with a timetable and controlled by Government.

My suspscion is that whatever Cameron's intent, the implementation will be rather different. I suspect it is likely to be a cover for chopping things "well if they want a kiddies playground, let them make one, the council will get rid of our playground, sack the caretaker/gardener and save 20 grand a year on wages and sell the land".

I quite like the idea of less central gov't control - one of Labour's and previous tory gov'ts weaknesses was control freak behaviour - wanting to dictate from London instead of letting people in whatever region or City decide what to do and how to do it.

note: I am most definitely not a tory supporter.

Yes, nothing wrong with community or collective control over village halls, housing estates, the means of production or the global economy. And the "third sector" have been meeting Cameron and other tories for several years to discuss a larger role for vol-orgs in managing services.

The problem lies in a couple of areas. First, passing services out leads people who take them on, to pick and choose what they want to manage. Here's an example, not from a plc, but from our cuddly doctors. As a substitute for universal provision and a requirement to look after all of us, it seems a little wanting.

Second, the stuff about local communities and vol-orgs is just a figleaf for the real agenda, which is the transfer of massive amounts of wealth from us (all of us, who own it already) to a collection of global capitalists. Just one example of what's in store.

We own the NHS, the schools, the local authorities. They are ours. And yet this semi-elected bunch of creeps is about to destroy the value we have built up over generations, and hand it to the private sector, whoever they are and wherever they are based, as an act of ideology and greed, for which they personally and individually will profit, probably by far more than Blair managed. A couple of community-owned pubs, a few dozen parent-run schools, garnering headlines before sinking into unnoticed bankruptcy in a few years' time, are no more than window dressing.

It's corrupt, it's wrong, and we should fight it.

[snowychap]

The Big Society

Good , bad or indifferent?

I'll refer you to a comment I made in a previous thread:

snowychap"]

And also Cameron has this ridiculous scheme to allow people to build schools. DIY Britain, great....

Better DIY than PFI, though in the end I think you'll find it's exactly the same thing.

Indeed and we'll all be told it's our bloody fault if/when it costs so much and/or goes bloody wrong.

And then, whom would the Tories be able to blame for the 'failure of the Big Society'? People, that's who.

So, Mervyn's suggestion that whoever wins would be out of power for a generation might be shown to be untrue.

Rather, it will be shown that whomever can be blamed for the failure and failings of whoever wins will be seen as responsible for the problems of the country for a generation.

[snowychap]

The idea of empowering local people is fine, but the idea of paying them next to nothing and relying heavily on a voluntary sector whilst living in a capitalist society makes no sense. Ok, it makes perfect sense in terms of saving money and aiding the process of fixing the economy, but having so much people doing work 'for free' when they have to make a living is nonsensical. How do they pay for their homes?

Or do they expect people, who already have to work their balls of to make a living, to double up as a voluntary worker? If so they are relying on something completely unreliable.

It's doomed to fail IMO. Good for the deficit, bad for the people. That'll be the tagline of this government.

You might find this a bit shocking but I'm not sure there's much in your post with which I disagree.

[snowychap]

It could be worse, he could be on about Big Country!

Snigger, snigger.

[Ads]

I’m aware of one or two co-op style community hydro-electric plants that a few rural villages have set up together in the spirit of providing cheaper and greener energy for the community, where they don’t forecast that it will make a profit for ten years, which is obviously a long term commitment.

So it can work, even if its only really been tested and proved on a small scale.

[Gringo]

It probably is a headline grabber, because it doesn't seem thought through - more an aspiration, or an ideal he has.

On post offices, there are a lot of small towns and villages where they've lost post offices, pubs and small shops, and if people could be given help/guidance as to how to run them themselves as a co-op type arrangement, then that's a good thing

I've got an idea to help ressurrect the post offices, why not give them the contract for distributing TV licenses, and set up a basic account banking network to supplement the basic accounts that the big banks are supposed to offer. The only reason post offices became unprofitable was because the national govt stripped away all it's profit making services and auctioned them off, leaving them with the rump of loss making services.

A post office, has to be part of a national network, and it would benefit from national co-ordination, purchasing, branding etc, as well as a national network for deliver letters.

In one area the govt are telling us they can save money my merging organisations (ie police forces) as it leads to greater efficiencies as outlined above, yet in other areas this appears to be less of a factor.

[Gringo]

I’m aware of one or two co-op style community hydro-electric plants that a few rural villages have set up together in the spirit of providing cheaper and greener energy for the community, where they don’t forecast that it will make a profit for ten years, which is obviously a long term commitment.

So it can work, even if its only really been tested and proved on a small scale.

I think voluntary schemes that people choose to be a part of stand a greater chance of success than 'voluntary' schemes that are forced upon people.