UK Politics VII - Going down on Downing Street

[mormont]

Aaaand he's gone.

This must set some sort of record. Three weeks in and a major resignation already?

[Daeric]

That was quick indeed, wonder how much it would cost us if in the next goverment we paid one of them to punch the speaker in the face.

Not only would it probably break the quickest sacking, but if its still Bercow we get to laugh as well

[mormont]

From time to time, an issue arises that makes the revival of this thread necessary - nay, essential. Today, such an issue comes to the fore:

Prime Minister David Cameron has joked that TV bully Gripper Stebson was a role model during his school days.

Mr Cameron was promoting his "big society" initiative alongside Grange Hill creator Phil Redmond.

The PM said he had been a fan of the show, adding: "Indeed Gripper Stebson was one of my role models in life."

There is only one response to this:

You wish.

Gripper would cheerfully have broken both Cameron's legs and nicked his lunch money. :box:

[Usotsuki]

:lol: Whoever wrote that article has a truly evil mind - Hereward?

"In contrast to Gripper Stebson's reign of terror at the fictional London comprehensive, the prime minister was described as a popular pupil at Eton."

[mormont]

I await Theresa May's revelation that she modelled herself on Trisha Yates, and William Hague's discussion of the profound influence of Pogo Patterson on his career. :P

[Lyanna Stark]

So, for all you wise people in the know, what does this "Big Society" entail? I can't really get my head around it, apart from that I should volunteer and do lots of stuff for free? (Or maybe this is just for the unemployed or part time workers??? Not sure how well it will go down with my boss to just wander off to do some volunteering.)

[Night Watchman]

So, for all you wise people in the know, what does this "Big Society" entail? I can't really get my head around it, apart from that I should volunteer and do lots of stuff for free? (Or maybe this is just for the unemployed or part time workers??? Not sure how well it will go down with my boss to just wander off to do some volunteering.)

You know the '4th Sector Path-finders' idea that Nicola Murray had in The Thick Of It? It seems scarily similar to that.

[Usotsuki]

What it's not about is saving money, David Cameron has been very clear about that, repeatedly.

This is a thoroughly considered programme for developing empowered individuals in communities with oomph, definitely not the sugary shiny sprinkles on the bitter cake of cuts.

I know that in my village we're planning to revive the ancient custom whereby the twelve poorest families receive a free duck at Christmas and complimentary lodging in the Workhouse community support and retraining centre.

[A wilding]

So, for all you wise people in the know, what does this "Big Society" entail? I can't really get my head around it, apart from that I should volunteer and do lots of stuff for free? (Or maybe this is just for the unemployed or part time workers??? Not sure how well it will go down with my boss to just wander off to do some volunteering.)

As far as I can tell, it is all about the state/taxpayers reducing support of poor, ill or unemployed people, and expecting the "community", i.e. charities, volunteers, family members and neighbours to take up the slack.

[mormont]

So, for all you wise people in the know, what does this "Big Society" entail?

Basically, it's like this: imagine there was an earthquake. The government is telling you 'Great news! We've decided to hand out sticking plasters so you can all engage in your own rescue efforts, instead of burdening you with ambulances and helicopters and all that Big Government nonsense. This is our Big Idea, by the way.'

There's some other bits but they're meaningless waffle that not even David Cameron really understands.

[Derfel Cadarn]

As far as I can tell, it is all about the state/taxpayers reducing support of poor, ill or unemployed people, and expecting the "community", i.e. charities, volunteers, family members and neighbours to take up the slack.

I think it's also aimed at getting rid of public sector workers, i.e get volunteers to take over the running of museums and libraries etc.

Maybe we could get rid of the politicians and have 'big society' take over the running of the country?

[Lyanna Stark]

Right, so I wasn't really wrong in what I assumed.

However, what I would really like to know is how on God's green earth David Cameron was surprised that "Big Society" turned out to be a hard sell in the election campaign? It must take some serious self delusion to not realise that this may not be 100% palatable to large portions of the population.

[Lummel]

Hopeless optimism maybe?

I was under the impression that the charity sector already benefited from public spending, I think meals on wheels services for example are largely provided by charities...so if public spending is going down presumably the money avaliable to charities will also go down. Oh no, of course not because individuals will provide their own training, insurance, vehicles or materials out of their own pockets naturally.

Maybe backpackers could provide consular services for us as part of their gap years as well.

[Hereward]

Well, I dont think you have a representative sample of opinion in the thread. I'm not mad keen on the idea myself, but the aim is a little bit more complicated than "deal with your own disasters", though getting rid of public sector workers is closer to one of the aims.

The idea is that power is devolved from the centre to local authorities, and, where desirable, from local authorities to communities themselves. It also encompasses getting more oversight of publicly funded organisations by the public themselves.

This is not about abolishing key state services, per se (that's the comprehensive spending review!). It's aim is to get people to help themselves, where they have a desire to do so, with government or local authorities providing funding rather than massive, centralising bureaucracies.

Personally, I don't think it will work, but I can see why they're doing it. Lots of people have been complaining about the target culture, the rigid centralisation of means and outcomes, the inaccesibility of government bodies to local and personal concerns and pressure, and the bureaucratisation of processes, plus the mindset of waiting for government to "do something"

This is aimed at getting people to identify needs, local solutions and innovative methods, and then to focus on delivery at the sharp end rather than expensive oversight and "support" functions.

Shame people are selfish, intolerant, disorganised and a bit stupid.

[Lyanna Stark]

The idea is that power is devolved from the centre to local authorities, and, where desirable, from local authorities to communities themselves. It also encompasses getting more oversight of publicly funded organisations by the public themselves.

I can see why this would be an admirable goal, but I am also quite confused by the vagueness. I don't even know what "community" means here, or how it is defined. Am I a part of one, and in that case, which one and together with whom?

"Community" seems like just another political buzzword, used perhaps with a bit of nostalgia for how things used to be back in the good old days.

Shame people are selfish, intolerant, disorganised and a bit stupid.

Without enough coffee I readily sign up to all of the above!!

[Hereward]

I can see why this would be an admirable goal, but I am also quite confused by the vagueness. I don't even know what "community" means here, or how it is defined. Am I a part of one, and in that case, which one and together with whom?

That's one of the biggest flaws in the argument. Though, to be fair, there are close knit communities, just not so much in the suburbs of the Home Counties where we both live.

I suppose the idea is that either this will reinforce existing communities, or create them where they have ceased to exist. Not confident on their prospects, I have to say.

Without enough coffee I readily sign up to all of the above!!

Me too, and I drink whisky rather than coffee so I tend to get more like that as the day goes on. :wideeyed:

[Lyanna Stark]

Me too, and I drink whisky rather than coffee so I tend to get more like that as the day goes on. :wideeyed:

Does that make you Tolkien to my Robert Jordan though? :P

EDIT: although with all the Coke Zero I've had lately, I feel more like I should be Stephenie Meyer. :stunned:

[Hereward]

Does that make you Tolkien to my Robert Jordan though? :P

Well, I'm crotchety enough for Tolkien, but your beard is nowhere near luxuriant enough for Jordan. :leaving:

[Lummel]

In theory it could be good for NGOs, but how much extra responsibility do they want to take on?

[mormont]

In theory it could be good for NGOs, but how much extra responsibility do they want to take on?

How much can they take on, with cuts in government funding? This is the flaw in the government's thinking - how much responsibility can most people take on, even if they are genuine when they say they want it? Most polls show they're not - the Economist had one during the election that showed the majority in favour of more local control and more voluntary sector delivery of services, but a relatively small number of people who would actually do anything themselves to make these things happen.

And of course, those people who do have the ability and the will to take on such extra responsibility tend to be quite unrepresentative of the people they'd be tasked with delivering services to: they're predominantly older, more affluent, and more right-wing (although there's a subset of very left-wing people too).

And then again, most people want more localised delivery - but they also want to avoid 'postcode lotteries' in services. People are very inconsistent on this point, and this policy seems tailor-made to highlight that inconsistency.

This is quite apart from my deep philosophical objections to increasing charity and voluntary sector involvement in the delivery of public services.

Ill-defined, meaningless where it's not actually harmful, and probably going to be a PR disaster. Wonderful policy.