“It is not yet known when the government will get the message and quietly drop the idea of the Big Society”

Why ought it? The concept of eliminating over-reliance on the state and encouraging social solidarity is rather one of the Tory raisons d’etre.

@ 1 Parasite

“Why ought it?”

Because a) most people don’t understand it and b) most people who do understand it don’t like it.

“The concept of eliminating over-reliance on the state and encouraging social solidarity is rather one of the Tory raisons d’etre.”

It would rather help if “encouraging social solidarity” involved a few carrots along with all the sticks. And if any thought at all had been spared for those vulnerable people not lucky enough to see their previous state-sponsored services taken up by volunteers.

You’re pro-free-market, Parasite, and fair enough, but don’t insult our intelligence and yours by pretending that “encouraging social solidarity” is anything other than a euphemism for “cutting people off and vaguely hoping that good-natured souls with time on their hands will take up the slack”.

Give me 5 specific policies the tories have to encourage social solidarity

It might also have something to do with Chris Grayling putting out a press release claiming ‘big boost for the Big Society as 300 voluntary organisations sign up for the Work Programme’ and went on to mention some of the big names. One of them was the Citizens Advice Bureau.

I went and asked my boss at CAB what was going on because I knew they wouldn’t touch the Work Programme with a snooker cue attached to a bargepole and she said A4e had told Grayling to put their name on his list. Grayling did so without checking with CAB first. Apparently prime contractors have been doing this a lot lately and charities are really annoyed at having their reputations tarnished by even implied association with the Work Programme.

er Chaise
c) and many other who do like the idea of the big society realise that Cameron’s policies are intent on directly undermining the pillars of the big society”

– The big society are those bits of society that address areas where the market place fails to deliver social needs.

So:
Schools
Hospitals
Councils
Charities
Pressure Groups

@ 5 David Hodd

“The big society are those bits of society that address areas where the market place fails to deliver social needs.

So:
Schools
Hospitals
Councils
Charities
Pressure Groups”

In the most part, the first three on that list are generally delivered by government, not the Big Society. I realise that you could say that socialism delivered through government is the Big Society by another name, but it’s not helpful to confuse the terms. Basically, I’d break it down as follows:

*The market
*Government
*The “genuine” Big Society (e.g. charities, pressure groups, individual volunteers)

Society has been doublethinked out of existence by Margaret Thatcher and then back into existence by David Cameron. Always assuming that Mr Cameron is currently certain that there is such a thing as society, his deffinition of society remains in question. Surely, he should be governing in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom and not just in the interests of certain parts of it, such as “Middle England”, whereever or whatever the politicians mean by that conspeak euphemism.

@7: “I can well imagine vulnerable mentally and physically ill 65 year olds dredging trollys out of canals for £1.50 per hour 10 years from now, be it under a Conservative or a Labour government.”

Looxury !

The looming question on the horizon is whether they will be making a modest investment in a national network of neighbourhood Harold Shipman Centres – manned by volunteers, naturally – to facilitate the passing of the old and vulnerable.

Simple cost-benefit analysis will show that a pensioner gone is a budget deficit saver from the net fiscal benefits to the government from the savings in state pension payments and the increasing cost of NHS healthcare.

Try:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo&feature=fvwrel

@Parasite
I would ask the government to drop the idea of the Big Society because frankly I believe that we vote a government in to take responsibility of the country, the manner in which it is run and crucially how services such as healthcare and education are managed. I do not expect a government that has been voted in to simply loose all responsibility for these things by claiming (mostly falsely I believe) that people ‘want to take power for themselves’. It’s a get out clause for the future when plans fail, it won’t be the governments fault, it’ll be the Big Societies.

Furthermore charities cannot simply be asked to take on more than they already do, most run on very low funding anyway which has only decreased with the current problems with the economy and cuts.

The best reason for dropping the ‘Big Society’ idea is simply because it is not needed. Those interested in the ‘Big Society’ should be doing their bit by now and if they haven’t started yet, they ain’t waiting for David Cameron to tell them. In fact, if these people need the Government to start up the big society, then the very concept has failed.

How much more can the Big Society dead horse be flogged?

It’s ill thought out.

Most of the time we’re told that “The Market” and competition are the best way to drive value and quality in public services – in other words things get better when someone’s making a quid or two.

But at the same time anything that you can’t make money out of should just be done by anyone who fancies it with cash and time on their hands, regardless of value or quality.

Either profit is the only way to get things done or philanthropy works just as well, but not both surely?

You know you’re sat in a third world country when public services are provided by charities & NGOs – why is this set up the government’s goal? Surely we should be aiming to live in a country where charities are not required at all.

http://neitherangryorscared.blogspot.com/