“Wow. They are being generous aren’t they?”

Well, what’s your plan? That they give no days to volunteer like the shadow front bench, and expect the state to do it all?

Not just Big Soc. It’s Family Values time again:

David Cameron: marriage is key to stable society
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8529992/David-Cameron-marriage-is-key-to-stable-society.html

I do so love it when the family values stuff is trundled out because all sorts of really fascinating news comes to the surface, news like this:

Sex shame: MP’s wife in North Cheam massage parlour
http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/news/8381112.Sex_shame__MP_s_wife_in_North_Cheam_massage_parlour/

Parasite

Well, what’s your plan? That they give no days to volunteer like the shadow front bench, and expect the state to do it all?

Why shouldn’t the State beef up services by providing them.

Nothing against volunteering, but actually most of us are very time poor.

There’s nothing wrong in expecting professionals employed by the State to deliver services.

Marvellous. So the normal worker isn’t giving enough to charity, eh? Now its even easier through Link ATMs.

Meanwhile, the super-rich (whose fortunes rose around 18% in 2010) have slashed charitable donations by 33%, and demand tax breaks to give more. Which, obviously, isn’t giving more at all.

I did think that whilst this Government and its rich supporters were closing hospitals, schools, and drug treatment centres, at least their cabal would make sure there was an opera house in every major city. But it looks like even this silver-lining has been dashed.

I had to come here for a laugh – everytime I see the words ‘Big Society’ (or BS for short) I know there is a joke in there somewhere.

I’m happy to volunteer to do more for my community….if only someone could arrange for me not to be at work 8-6 each day so I have time to do it.

We’re not all lazy and time free politicians you know – some of us have REAL jobs.

If you want to look at the Tory ‘commitment’ to the very concept of the ‘Big Society’ the proof of the policy is in the execution of it.

The last week or so saw Cameron’s intention to place the ‘Military Covenant’ onto a legal footing with legally binding statutes.

Quite apart that such a covenant is a complete anarchism, it really belongs in an era when all politicians saw ‘public service’ as a completely worthwhile endeavour in its self, this type of thing goes completely against the grain for the modern Tory Party.

We have been told that they way forward for ‘public services’ (and let us not pretend otherwise) is to deregulate, decentralise and devalue them, down to a completely voluntary basis. Yet here we have THE prime model for how the ‘Big Society’ could actually work; being actively moved from the REAL ‘Big Society’ onto the hands of ‘Big State’.

Traditionally, the welfare of ex servicemen has been a ‘Big Society’* venture. From the Earl Haig Fund to ex service men’s hospitals, including workshops etc. I can think of at least a couple of place around Scotland, Erskine and Linburn immediately to mind. I am sure that all other readers can name similar places around their surrounding areas that cater for the welfare of ex-servicemen.

Anyway, these places and other organisations far too many to mention, suffice to say the British Legion and Help for Heroes are two that spring to mind, though there are others, have all existed on a charitable basis. Millions of us buy poppies or attend our local armistice days all around the Country. We have all taken part in various charitable events of one kind or another to aid these causes. I personally buy several poppies during October and I am rarely seen without one in that month.

We have NEVER needed legislation to remind us of our duty. We have never forgotten and we always step up to the plate on this issue. Yet the Tories think we can no longer be trusted to do the right thing. They hold us British in so much contempt that they feel it necessary to remove the onus from us as citizens and replace it with a tax burden. Why? Why now? Why have we managed for all those years after the Great War have we been able to provide for the welfare of returning troops only now being told we are not good enough to do it now?

Okay, let me play Devil’s advocate for a second. Let’s start off with the premise that Cameron is right. Let us assume that ‘Top down Government provide services’ are as bad as he says and the best services are provided, not by diktat, bureaucratic systems, but an ad hock ‘all in this together’, ‘all mucking in’ and to hell what the ‘man from the ministry tell us’. Let us imagine that good volunteers are intrinsically superior to State run provision. Then why deliberately push ‘our boys’ into a worse system?

You see, I don’t believe David Cameron’s rhetoric. He knows that if you want to provide the armed forces with the sort of after care that he feels they deserve then the public sector and legislation is the way to go. You will NEVER achieve the type care and welfare that the military fetishists demand on an ad hock basis. He talks about ‘dedicated wards’ for squadies. Why not privatise these wards? If private medicine is so good, then why not private wards?

All the stuff about ‘Big Society’ is just serious bullshit. He could not give a fuck about the level of care the mentally ill get and if they wallow in their own shit, it matters not, just so long as the rich don’t have to pay for it.

*Of course, it was never called the ‘Big Society’ or anything else.

When all else fails blow up the Big Society balloon again and promise more jam tomorrow!

If Cameron really is in earnest about his Big Society scam – then he is more certifiably out of touch with reality than the public currently give him no credit for. How can the gullible fall for something he cannot explain without having admit to would be beguiled Big Soc participants that there is nothing in it for them? (B S – no prizes for guessing what else those initials stand for coincidentally?)

As to revivals and the art of flogging a dead horse, this reminds me of a much retired old crooner who just couldn’t bring himself to call it a day: – to paraphrase the Governor: “Old Blue Lies is back”

A while back I asked some very obvious, basic questions about Big Soc.

- Was there a time when Britain had a Big Soc and, if so, when?

- Have any other countries got or had Big Socs and, if so, where and when?

So far, I’ve not had any answers, which is sad as the questions are pretty fundamental as to whether we can expect Big Soc to make up for the swingeing cuts in public services being imposed.

This news is just broken about my local hospital:

An NHS trust with hospitals in Surrey and London has set out savings plans that could see the loss of 115 posts including 26 doctors.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13485447

I’d like to know whether and how Big Soc is going to make up for those job cuts.

Bob B

I got all excited when I heard about the BS – I thought it was code for utopia (no Government, population led society, bottom up, no working in pointless jobs – only worthwhile production, reversal of the division of labour, better working conditions through variety, more free time)

…then I realised it’s supposed to be on top of your current work.

I was all prepared to go and volunteer at my local hospital, doctors surgery, nursery school, old folks home etc. – then my alarm went off and I had to go to work.

it was a nice dream though – variety but productive variety – a panacea for me compared to the parasitical nature of finance.

I live in a London borough with a council officially designated as a “pathfinder” for Big Soc, apparently because the borough already has a flourishing “voluntary sector.”

The question is whether that flourishing voluntary sector will be able to fill in for the closing of council care homes for the elderly and disabled as well as for those with chronic mental health issues, and the prospect of significant job losses at the local hospital, which was found to have a predicted financial deficit this year of £38 million, reportedly one of the largest in all England.

There have been reports of major failings in local council children services in Doncaster and Hargingey and that was before the public spending cuts

Time will tell whether voluntary sectors will be able to make up for all that. Personally, I doubt it: “It’s sad about about Fred but no one had volunteered to cover that day.”

On a strict cost-benefit analysis, government finances gain from the earlier death of a pensioner: no more state pension to pay out as well as less of the expensive NHS healthcare to pay for. Modest public investment in a network of local terminator centres would bring fiscal rewards.

You know it makes sense.

Bob B @ 8

- Was there a time when Britain had a Big Soc and, if so, when?
- Have any other countries got or had Big Socs and, if so, where and when?

It all depends on how you define it. If you define the ‘Big Society’ as people comming together for the common good to perform non Government tasks then Britain hnd every other Country in World has always had the ‘Big Society’ and always will.

If you define it as Government withdrawing from society and society picking up the pieces, then look no further than the US.

We will have the latter when, like the US, we have soup kitchens in our Cities again.

Cameron should visit some of the sink estates around Britain and ask them about the Big Society.

Any news yet on where and when the government will be opening the first of the new Harold Shipman centres?

Bob B @10.

“On a strict cost-benefit analysis, government finances gain from the earlier death of a pensioner . . . ”

That is a terrifying, yet all too real scenario, Bob – an excellent post. – And it isn’t a new idea – this was the unspoken ‘policy’ of the Tories when Edwina Currie, (when holding ministerial office under Thatcher) – used to come out with warm, encouraging comments like “Well, we all have to die sometime” and ” If the old are cold in winter – they must knit themselves woolly hats.” And never a hint of shame or remorse for such mind boggling callousness after her political career had gone down with salmonella.
So let’s call a spade a spade: – as the economy is in such a parlous state – and we are all in it together (Big Society wise) – the aged have a role to play in our recovery. Let them shoulder their public duty and die promptly – don’t linger and be a drain on our already over-stretched resources of state. We are of course grateful for their contribution when they were viable but now – well now it’s time to go – for the good of our Big Society. And besides we can’t afford OAP’s AND fat cat bankers . Now – how many parsnips have I just buttered?
Tories never change – they just carry on arrogantly applying turd polish to their rotten, stinking anti-social policies – and ordinary people can go to hell (or heaven) – between elections.

“And it isn’t a new idea – this was the unspoken ‘policy’ of the Tories when Edwina Currie, (when holding ministerial office under Thatcher) ”

With due regard to Edwina Currie’s momentous personal contributions to British politics and her reflections on applying family values, her insights into the impressive fiscal and social benefits to be gained from promoting interventions and terminations of the elderly, the frail and incapacitated were substantially anticipated in the Third Reich. Social Democrat governments in Sweden were also pioneering in their way:

“In 1997, following the publication of articles by Maciej Zaremba in the Dagens Nyheter daily, widespread attention was given to the fact that Sweden once operated a strong sterilization program, which was active primarily from the late 1930s until the mid 1950s. A governmental commission was set up, and finished its inquiry in 2000.

“The eugenistic legislation was enacted in 1934 and was formally abolished in 1976. According to the 2000 governmental report, 21,000 were estimated to have been forcibly sterilized, 6,000 were coerced into a ‘voluntary’ sterilization while the nature of a further 4,000 cases could not be determined. The Swedish state subsequently paid out damages to many of the victims.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

Tony Blair’s insights into the causes of crime evolved significantly during his time as PM:

“The reality is that we are dealing with a very small number of highly dysfunctional families and children whose defining characteristic is that they do not represent society as a whole. They are the exception, not the rule. They do not respond to more investment. They do not conform to social norms.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3639522/Ive-been-tough-on-crime-now-we-have-to-nip-it-in-the-bud.html

“Early intervention in ‘hard to reach’ families is more effective in rooting out social exclusion than throwing money at the problem, Tony Blair says.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5315776.stm

Perhaps we need to take our cue from there.