The "Big Society"

I hope no one minds me posting the following on the forum. It is merely a rough draft and needs polishing up here and there. The final article will be forwarded to pressure groups unions and government opposition party leaders. Any comments positive or negative please.

The “Big Society” was the flagship proposed policy of the Conservative party’s 2010 general election manifesto. It is now at the core of the legislative programme of the coalition agreement. The stated aim is to create a climate that empowers local people and communities, building a “Big Society” (BS) that will take power away from politicians and give it to ordinary people.

At first glance, you could be forgiven for thinking that such a well intended aim should be commended and welcomed.

The government has now embarked on a spending spree of taxpayer’s cash on a media led national recruitment drive for volunteers to sign-up to the BS. Seems like a good time as any to delve deeper to see if this initiative should be welcomed with opened-arms. Is this really about raising community spirit or is there a hidden agenda lurking just below the surface?

The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams appears to sit in the latter camp when he said of the BS, “aspirational waffle designed to conceal a deeply damaging withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities to the most vulnerable.”

My real concern is that many voluntary groups under the BS umbrella will not be working in unison with existing public service providers such as local authorities, NHS trusts and other bodies, delivering services in a supplementary capacity, but will end up being an on the cheap replacement.

During a recent visit to my local hospital I noticed a change in a basic service, which is a case in point.
I was down to my last battery for my hearing aid and the small device was falling apart, requiring re-tubing and servicing. Accordingly, after thanking the hospital receptionist for the batteries, I asked to book an appointment to get the aforesaid repairs carried out. The receptionist replied, “That’s done by volunteers now who attend the hospital every third Thursday morning in the month, but you need to be aware that sometimes they don’t turn up. You don’t need an appointment, just come along.”

Just imagine the following hypothetical scenario;
“Hello Mrs X, my name is Ms Y from the Community and Living department at the District Council. It is with great regret that I have to inform you that the voluntary gravedigger failed to appear yesterday, leaving us with no alternative but to cancel your Husband’s funeral scheduled for later today.” Of course, Mrs X would have no means of redress against the gravedigger because as a volunteer he would not be bound under any terms of a ‘contract of employment.’

Millions of ordinary people are working more hours now than they have throughout their working lives and many are struggling to make ends meet from day-to-day. We are told the cost of the current level of public services is unsustainable. Yet, the government waves a magic wand and cash always appears, to pay for wars, bank bail outs, millionaire MPs to clean out their duck ponds, huge bonuses and golden handshakes for retiring banksters and servicing the extortionate interest rates on the PFI debts.
I refuse to subscribe to the BS, because offering my services for free will inevitably lead to a public servant redundancy somewhere down the line. Furthermore, any financial savings to the treasury will ultimately end up in the pockets of the profiteers, who by hiding behind the cloak of confidentiality are unaccountable to the taxpayer, as the recent fiasco surrounding G4S showed.

Ken - it's no coincidence that the first letters of The Big Society are B.S.
(Cow manure is the polite version)
PR is Mr Cameron's speciality - it basically comes down to saving money for all the organisations you mentioned above.

I don't agree with charity taking the place of state responsibilities.
We do however need to stop spending beyond our means. So in the end one way or another people will have to do more for themselves or go without.

10 days after UK troops invaded Iraq a journalist asked the then Chancellor Gordon Brown, “How much the war was going to cost?” Without even pausing to reflect on the question, he replied, “Whatever it takes.” In contrast, many of the returning soldiers with severe injuries were forced to rely on charity for help and support. Says a lot about the kind of society we live in and where our priorities lie, don't you think?

It’s not rocket science; the cuts in public services will inevitably hit the weakest and most vulnerable members of our communities the hardest. Well run and dedicated charities are victims of their own success. The more the army of volunteers take on the more the Tories will slash. Survival of the fittest society I’m going to label the BS from now on.

Ken
I've just come back from a week working in London. For three of those days I was deployed in the Borough of Westminster, which is probably the most exclusive and wealthiest of the London Boroughs. Areas included in that borough include Knightsbridge, Mayfair, Sloane Square, Kensington Palace Gardens which has homes owned by Abramovich and Lashkmi Mittal and One Hyde Park, where apartments sell for obscene amounts of money. Whilst on static patrols were we frequently passed by supercars and they appeared as common as muck around the area and the place just smelt of extreme wealth. I saw no signs of the recession having an effect in this borough. (Apparently alot of the monied in this area are eastern european Ogliarchs and oil rich middle easterners).

However, 5 miles down the road, we were accomodated in university halls of residence in Wandsworth, and we were located on the edge of a council estate, which apparently is one of the poorest in London. The area was run down and neglected, with all the social problems prevalent in such areas. Yet just half a mile down the road were million pound houses.

We are certainly not all in this together!!!!!!!!!!

Military charity Help for Heroes has been criticised by some of the UK's worst-wounded troops for spending money on buildings rather than everyday care.

They claim the recovery centres are not always available to veterans who have left the forces.

The criticism was uncovered in a report by BBC Newsnight and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism into state and charity provision for injured troops.

Help for Heroes says that, without its cash, the centres would not exist.

However, injured troops and their families who were contacted for the investigation complained that the charity was subsidising multi-million pound Ministry of Defence building projects, when money was needed for practical everyday help for injured service personnel and veterans.

A classic example of what I'm talking about. The more the hard working fundraisers and volunteers in all areas of society do, the more the government will cut. My taxes should be helping these wounded soldiers who risked their lives for us.

Surely, that's the very least they should expect?
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Our only hope for the future...

Vote HUNAR!

www.facebook.com/hunar4pm