Entertainment For Lively Minds
A Big Society Question
Posted by Danmac on 23 February 2011 - 7:40pm.
I will declare an interest . I have worked with children , young and older adults with special needs . From resettling into the community as long stay hospitals closed to working within respite and self development areas .
Moral Maze on Radio 4 tonight at 8pm may well be worth a listen . Having worked both within large national charities as well as social services I have my own feelings, however hope that the Massive may be tempted to listen tonight and share their views .
For those who feel these changes will not effect them , I would point out services they may well feel are "safe" are far from .
- More from Danmac.
- Login or register to post comments
-
File On Four was an eye opener this week.
Talking about the percentage of money donated to charities/aid agencies/NGOs that gets eaten up in 'admin expenses and overheads'. Scary numbers...
Have you recorded this
Sounds interesting . Sadly I do not have a telly . I will say no more at the mo as I am really interested in the Massive's opinion .
It's a Radio 4 programme so is on listen again.
Only for those with a UK IP address...
(other sources are available)
File on Four
hi Stimpy I am struggling to find this edition of File on Four .
Thanks Dan
I think this is the one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vrvv0
It's a repeat of one broadcast in November.
That's the kiddy, thanks Vulp.
I didn't realise it was a repeat. The down side of listening by podcast I guess.
There was also a Radio 4 programme about charities and NGOs involved in disaster relief but I can't find it on Listen Again. It was called "Haiti and the truth about NGOs" or similar.
see multi tasking
Hangs head in shame trying to type and deal with phone call . Of course if i had my specs on it would have helped .
The Big Society is fine for
The Big Society is fine for those with enough money and time to ease their guilt over their good fortune.
Isn't the concept of The Big Society
that - we'll still pay the same taxes that we've always paid for services that the council and government provided, but now, they won't provide them, we can do them on weekends and evenings. But we'll still pay the taxes. Obviously.
the devil is in the detail
Rather than dwell on the guff about 'everything being done by volunteers from now on' it would be more useful to discuss the merits and demerits of the Big Society's big idea - namely the transfer of some services from public sector provision to the domain of the voluntary (or private) sector. I'm sure there are certain services that would not suit such an arrangement, but I'll give you a personal view on one (based on more than twenty years in the field).
I've been involved in youthwork for longer than I care to remember, having worked for several voluntary organisations and three different local authorities. My personal and professional view is that voluntary sector provision is far superior to anything provided by local authorities. It's not even close. In fact, the gulf in quality is embarrassing.
I don't intend to go into the probable reasons for this, nor do I want to bore anyone with a list of examples (believe me, there are many). All I offer is an insider's view of one particular service that I'd be delighted to see taken out of the dead hand of local government.
I too
have worked in both public and voluntary sector agencies and, I too have noticed the yawning gulf in quality between services provided by each.
I can certainly see some validity in allowing the vol. orgs to provide some of the services currently provided by the NHS and local government.
However, thats not what the current government are doing. They're removing the local authority funding which allows authorities to commission and support vol.orgs. This means neither local authorities or the voluntary sector provide the service. The services simply cease to exist.
This appears to be a deliberate policy. I can find no other explanation for what the government are doing. They genuinely seem not to care about the impact of their policies and appear to be dressing up a level of welfare state destruction which Thatcher would have balked at in PR spin and worthless garbage about a "Big Society" whilst destroying the only agencies who could conceivably bring such a thing into being. It the Big Lie.
I truly despair at the prospect of the sort of country this will be in 2 years time. If I could leave I would.
Interesting
Like you DC I have 20 plus years both in the voluntary and local govt as well as NHS .
My experience in the voluntary sector was dreadful and the standards were mixed to say the least . I experienced people in postions of power who were not up to the job . Waste of resources and politics which would rival any ancient roman's experience . My experience of volunteers fully understanding the importance of confidentialty were also poor and the sense of " entitlement " because you were a volunteer baffling to say the least !
The NHS post I found to be hamstrung on occasion by its " internal market " but still full of willing and dedicated workers .
Local Authority attempted to deliver service of a high quality but seemed terrified of "complaints" justified or otherwise .
I still have not listened to the program and though I am sure there are many people doing sterling , unstinting , quality work in the voluntary sector . I cannot shake the feeling its like using rolled tights as a temporary fan belt , fine as a concept, however the flaws in the structure means it is doomed to fail .
I haven't listened to the programme, but ...
There are a few things that keep nagging away at me.
The first, they is part of me thinks this is just Cameron attempting to re-brand and reposition the Tory party. Margaret Thatcher's "no such thing as society" will not be pinned to Prime Minister Cameron. On this subject my other thought about Cameron is that he's not too hot on detail and he's happy to work out the policy on the back of rhetoric. So "Big Society" is still a work in progress and very possibly a lot of things that aren't meant to be Big Society are being labelled thus.
Second, what irks me slightly is that a lot of us already volunteer our skills and time for a wide range of organisations and we didn't have to be told by government to do it. We do it, because it is enjoyable, it can at times be frustrating, but overall its kind of fulfilling and I would recommend anyone to get involved in it - whatever it is.
Also I don't really have problems with services being provided by organisations that aren't directly linked to government or local government - as long the services are delivered to standard that is the same or, hopefully, better. I worked in a voluntary capacity for a Housing Association in South London and I like to think that it provided a better service for its tenants than the local authority.
But, and this a big but, if my volunteering is going to be used to replace people who used to be providing that service as their paid job the "Big Society" can go get stuffed (I would actually use a stronger word).
Cameron is playing for high stakes here and I don't really think he understands what he has set in motion. By associating volunteerism so closely with party politics there is a danger he will make many people back away from it rather than embrace it.
terminology
I don't think that 'Call me Dave' is suggesting that everything should be done by volunteers.
Some public services should definitely be contracted out of local government. In most cases, service delivery will be improved. If that service doesn't improve, the agency that got the contract won't get the contract renewed. That sounds like quite a healthy arrangement.
I'd also like to see the 'Big Society' address the bureaucratic politicisation of charity that has taken place over the last 25 years. The Big Lottery (for instance), with its army of policy makers and grant officers, exerts a baleful, oppressive influence on voluntary activity in this country. I defy anyone to visit one of the 'Big Lottery' offices and not feel sickened by the opulence of it all.
The notion of 'charity' used to be about doing civic good for the sake of it. That notion has been debased to the point that 'charity' is now a highly-politicised term.
They can stick their big society up their arse
What it means is we will get rid of Police in the community and residents can police their own towns/villages. We wont provide care in the community - our next door neighbours can administer care if we are ill!! What the fuck is happening to this country? My mother in law has vascular dementia as do thousands of other people in this country. The available care of a sufficiently good standard is pitiful and extremely expensive. As a family we will pay as much as we can including putting a charge on her home to take care of the costs. Getting help from the government even in terms of getting her properly assessed is ridiculous. It seems the only condition that is classed as requiring medical care is something like Quadraplegia - my Mother in law is registered blind, requires medication 4 times per day,can't walk unaided and is incontinent. None of this is qualified as needing medical care. It seems Big Society means small Government. IE. Do it yourself because we can't be arsed.
I DIDN'T VOTE FOR THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!
"It seems Big Society means small Government"
That sounds like a very appealing idea to me. Government should be there to govern, legislate and provide a light touch on people's everyday lives.
As far as I can tell, small government should be seen as a good thing?
Surely someone needing support and help with a severely disabled relative shouldn't need to deal with government? They should be able to deal direct with the doctors and specialists with whom they need to deal - and not bureaucrats and civil servants?
You see that cave over there? The damp one on the hill?
That's yours, that is.
It's about minimum standards
Government should be of whatever size is needed, big or small, to govern, legislate and make sure that acceptable standrds are a achieved in key areas such as education, health, policing etc.
To answer the question you pose above, light touch rings alarm bells for me. To me at least, it is well on its way to the standard Tory de-regulation, liberation, free market rhetoric. It's regulation based on cost / profit, not on need or moral obligation. Light touch regulation was the bankers favourite description of what they felt was appropriate both before and after the crash. It's regulalry touted by the CBI (that's the same CBI that want to scrap the minimum wage for under 21's).
I like the idea of a government that will look out for the most needy and vulnerable members of our society, rather than assume that volunteers will step in. Leaving it to volunteers is abdication, not government.
Sorry if I'm ranting. I just needed to say that.
I agree that we should
deal with the Doctors and Specialists direct but try doing it in reality. It is bloody well impossible. We found a nice home for my mother in law this week - we can't put her in there until she has been assessed. The assessment could be 2 or 3 weeks if it is fast tracked. We could put her in there without the assessment but we were told be an NHS employee if we did that she would be forgotten about and never assessed. Consequence: We lose the home of our choice. Alternatives recommended by the NHS? You wouldn't put your dog in there. We are not asking the government for hand outs but she will need medical care. I know what you are saying about less government but some things ie. policing, health, law and order and other essential services need to be provided by central government. If they are going to absolve all responsibility for them which appears to be what they are advocating then the only thing we will get is chaos or services no-one can afford.
take a case like a person who is living at home but
perhaps demented and incontinent.
Somebody is going to have to help that person and doing it isn't going to be a barrel of laughs. It certainly isn't going to be a doctor who goes into that person's home and risks being assaulted to clean up an individual that has spent the day sitting in their own shit, then maybe makes sure that person gets a decent meal.
If cuts in financing mean that carers (i.e. people who do this kind of thing) are sacked then which part of the Big Society is going to step in? Any volunteers? Hello, anyone ... ?
It strikes me that this gets
It strikes me that this gets to the heart of the discussion: What is the role of Government in Society, and what are the roles of the genral populace? Is small Government necessarily good?
I lived for 30-odd years in Britain, and the last 10 or so in the USA, home of the "small is good" thought.
Reliance on volunteers and the private sector is a shaky foundation upon which to build anything.
The private sector always, always, has a profit motive that will trump any professed mission statement.
Volunteer organizations rely on volunteers (to state the obvious) and fund raising. There is a finite amount of time/capacity there.
The approach of the USA, and the mentality of many, particularly the Right, is staggeringly callous. The socialized system that Britain enjoys may not run perfectly - but the philosophy behind it is one that speaks of a mature society that recognizes people's interdependencies. The government provision of services, funded by us all, is the right way to go.
I agree with the post that suggests that cutting services as drastically as I understand them to be cut whilst keeping NI and Tax rates where they are is a little bit difficult to take.
I speak as an outsider
from the local government/voluntary sector and so the following may come across as a little ill-informed and ignorant, but for what it's worth, here goes. Firstly, governments should give up on big ideas, they never learn and we aren't interested in this pr fluff. What have we had in the recent past - ethical foreign policy, the 3rd way, victorian values - all nonsense and dreamt up by pimply consultants who think that they have discovered the keys to the kingdom. The same applies to the Big Society and like Tone and his mob, this looks very much like another policy based on what might look good but will end up tripping them up. There are serious questions to be addressed in local authority waste and inefficiency and it would be daft to claim that local authorities are not political in the way they address the need for cuts in the same way central govt is. There must be ways of streamlining local authority procedures so front line services are not affected but can all of them look themselves in the mirror and honestly say they are addressing the needs of the local ratepayers and not hoping for political headlines ? All I know in this regard is that my local hospital felt the need to emply more administrators and yet couldn't find the resources to recruit nurses and this is wrong. Equally central govt shouldn't use the excuse of taking government off our backs (i.e: spying on us, telling us what to eat and all the other nonsense fine tuned by Tone, Gordon and his blatant illiberal rabble) as a way of copping out from providing decent services for those people in need and some in very serious need. Governments should never forget that it is they have to serve us - not the other way round - and there has to be a Conservative policy other than Thatcherite harshness which went way beyond what was necessary. I really feel for what Steve Turner is going through though. I'll stop now because I've started confusing myself.