By Sally Gimson
The "big society" idea is going to fail. It might be possible to build up the voluntary sector to take over some services in good times, but it surely won't work in bad times when hundreds of thousands of people are going to be made unemployed and then asked to run their local library or volunteer to be special constables.
For some Tories, I think, an exciting part of this idea is that the cuts will mean that more women will have to leave the workforce. Their talents will instead be channelled into volunteering and, as the economy grows, more “real” red-blooded jobs will be created for men in the private sector.
You only have to hear David Cameron talk movingly about his own mother who was a magistrate and arranged the flowers in his local church to realize the kind of “big society” he is harking back to. A time when everyone knew their place, children were looked after by mothers in hats and floral dresses who ran the community, tended to the poor and kept the home fires burning.
David Willetts and others have argued that poor men need well-paid work to become marriageable and much of that work has been taken by women. There are the same proportion of the population in work as in the 50s, but mothers employment has tripled. It is the men who have lost out.
Willetts reckons that if men were to have better paid jobs, they would be more attractive, women would marry them and there would be fewer single mothers.
There might also be fewer single mothers if they were forced to stay in unsatisfactory relationships for economic reasons. And if they spent all their time running (for nothing) the local crèche, school and sure start centre, they would not have the money to leave. Perhaps that is what “more for less” might mean in practice.
The same argument also goes that if fewer middle class women worked there would be greater equality because double income professional families are so well off they pull further ahead financially than they should. If only the man worked (and the woman arranged the flowers) the gap between lower and higher income families would be less.
All this seems far away from empowered local communities which should have been original idea. The problem is that in their rush to get to the big society in the era of austerity, the government is looking at a top-down solution.
Empowered local communities are those where there is real accountability for what happens; where people feel that they participate in the doing rather than are done to. It requires energy, skill, aspiration and capacity which has to be nurtured. It means real local democracy and devolved power (and money). It is not simply a return to charitable volunteerism enforced by mass unemployment.
Pity the seventy puzzled civil servants apparently working at the cabinet office trying to solve the "big society" question and how to implement it. It will be interesting to see what the man in Whitehall comes up with, but the big society as a top down solution will never work.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Will try to return later- thankyou.
Jo.
Where would we be without Master Barnard?
"Sigh."
I dunno what to say, ol' cock, and I'll have to fall back on "comment is free, but facts are sacred."
That's my guiding principle. Having said which, it's a good job that I don't have political ambition ....
Sally : whilst I am distinctly underwhelmed by Mr Cameron's big idea of the "Big Society" (it's nonsense), I really don't like this article for a number of reasons : (i) it is speculative and subjective in nature and conclusions, (ii) it appears to be a continuation of the men vs women (and written very much pro-women) saga that has been going on for almost fifty years now, and (iii) I find the use of the word "empowered" (as in communities) almost as annoying as "progressive" (as in politics).
Hazico : I'm afraid that you are wrong ("....in the 1950's; when there were a limited number of jobs ....")
One of the features of the 1950s was not a "shortage of jobs." In fact, labour was in short supply : hence the deliberately managed and induced immigration of the 1950s (actually starting in 1948, with the arrival on 22 June at Tilbury of the MV “Empire Windrush”, carrying 492 Jamaicans).
Because of the "full employment" policies established by Labour (1945-51) and continued by the Conservatives (1951-64), the five million men and women "in uniform" in 1945 had no problems, by and large, in finding work : the civilian workforce increased from 16.4 million in 1945 to 19 million in 1948, and male employment from 10 million to 13.4 million in the same period.
That, as much as anything else, was one of the many great achievements of the Attlee government.
Konrad B : so-called welfare payments “cost the country” not a penny (apart from the administration costs, perhaps £5 billion a year). Cash benefits paid under the NI Acts and the various social security acts merely transfer money from person A (who has plenty of the stuff) to person B (who is short of the stuff), so that person B gets to spend it, rather than person A.
Of the £150 billion that you cite, about half (£77 billion) is paid as state retirement pensions and I hope that you aren’t going to propose that those who have paid their NI contributions for the requisite 44 years (to be reduced, I seem to remember) should be denied their state retirement pension. Indeed, all payments made under the NI Acts are absolute entitlements, because the insurance payments have been paid by the recipients.
On benefits in general : tucked away at the back of the OBR Pre-Budget forecast, in para B.15 is a statement : “…..the NAIRU is assumed to be around 5.25 per cent ….”
In other words, if inflation is not to accelerate (which is “policy”), economic policy as presently understood and applied requires an unemployment rate of 5.25 per cent.
Tell me, Konrad, what are you going to do about the one and a half million unemployed directly and deliberately resulting from government policy?
Oh, I nearly forgot to mention : the National Fraud Authority estimates that “benefits fraud” amounted to £1.1 billion in 2008/09, while tax evasion amounted to £7 billion in 2007/08 …. if I was government, I know who I would be going after ….
I was trying to make general comments about the post war period, (which you may know far more about.)
The point was- the 1950's appear retrospectively as a time when women were almost "marketed" as being the homemakers alone perhaps, in conjunction with new technologies to help with housework.
I also meant the contrast in womens' roles during and after the war.It seems to be widely recognized that men needed their jobs back after the war?(so perhaps I should have said the 1940's.)
I was simply comparing those phenomenen with Sally's issues raised.
To be honest I've lost track of the thread, as had no further time to re read or reflect on today.
But great comments as ever Peter- keep up the good work.
Jo.
I guess that's a matter of personal interest, experience, and opinion!
Always value your vast knowledge and great commentary though Peter.
I think that you'll find that the Second World War, when many women did important work in the effort to provide the supplies and services that the nation needed, was actually liberating for women and they certainly weren't going to go back to their pre-war status.
I agree that there were many advertisements that placed women in the "homemaker" role, but is "homemaking" such a bad thing?
Certainly, when you consider that nowadays something like 40 per cent of births are "out of wedlock", with all the attendant difficulties, maybe it isn't.
I accept that nostalgia can be beguiling and every generation appears to remember a "golden age", but the 1950s were a combination of the last vestiges of Victoriana and new challenges, especially in literature, theatre and popular music. The latter overcame the former ....
I dunno about this "gender role" thing - it is a complex area and I have seen and read too many acrimonious discussions that degenerate into bile, almost, to get involved myself - I'd rather stay out of it.
Certainly, I am no fan of Cameron and the "Big Society" (it's the pits) but I do think Sally's link between the BS and "traditional" roles for women is somewhat tenuous.
I'm having to churn out quick replies as very limited time in the school hols.
So apologies I'm not able to give a lot of thought and attention to some of my comments.
I'd just like to try and explain again- my overall perception of Sally's article is that it poses questions about the possible "effects" and aftermath of the BS.
I don't agree with her that the BS may have been
"set out" to disadvantage women persae; but I do agree that the net result could exacerbate already existing conditions.Added to the massive cuts in public services, this could reinforce inequalities- eg in the workplace.
The Fawcett Society is very useful to look up for facts and figures about long standing pay inequalities; also R4 Woman's Hour have discussed these issues on many occssions.)
The example given about low paid women(on average) in the public sector, working part time, and often carers, who may lose their jobs en masse(in addition to men)- and lose pension rights on already meagre salaries illustrates the case in point.
My take on it is that the cuts will disadvantage many in the public sector by causing deeper unemployment; and deepening inequalities in terms of pay and roles across the workforce. Of course this will affect men too, and will disadvantage all concerned.
As for BS- I think Sally may have been trying tie in, to illustrate as part of the whole ideology/picture?
Eg the image of "WI" type of volunteers in some nostalgic bygone era?
There seems to be a moralistic tone about civic duties etc...which in essence I agree with; but my gripe is that none of this should replace public services!
That is not to criticize in any way WI, or any other charities and voluntary organization:they are fantastic.
But these are all complimentary to a basic infrastructure of statutory/community, and public services- as I'm sure you agree.
It may be that Sally is referring to something that
D Willetts has said or implied about gender roles?
We have certainly seen a conservative ideology in the past that appears to promote women in the domestic sphere, at the exclusion of other aspects of life?
(Look at the make up of the current front cabinet also: it resembles somthing out of Victoriana rather than the 21st century.)
So I think questions to be asked about "effects" of policies, which appear to pay little or no attention to
major inequalities of gender, pay, or the widening gap bewteen poorer and richer sections of society.
Female voices appeared almost invisible during the election campaign- on all sides.
The only visible women in the media during that time were the wives of GB, DC, and NC!(and they were all portrayed and judged by appearance, not any kind of acheivement, or their opinions on anything.)
My argument is Peter- that roles can be shared by all; it doesn't have to be fixed. I met a Dutch midwife years ago through work, and she told me that it was commonplace in some European countries for male and female partners to take it in turns to be the financial breadwinners over time.This benefitted the family, and allowed both to keep up work skills,a level of independence, and spend time with their families.
Of course I'm not denigrating the role of homemaker: it is of vital importance. BUT that does not just apply to women; it's men also that greatly contribute.
Equally, as women can contribute in a whole range of jobs and professions; and should be equally paid.
So what I'm asking for is EQUALITY of roles, and perceptions of gender that do not denigrate(eg in the media and other powerful institutions.)
As regards earlier comments about womens' vital roles in WWII; and ensuing effects of men returning from the war to reclaim jobs; I meant that that was one example of how women have proven they can acheive at the same level, but are not always valued as such in terms of pay and recognition. Following on- the image of the 1950's "housewife" as the "ideal."
I dislike these fixed stereotypes, towards one's gender roles or any other aspect of identity.
I do have a sense that things are going backwards, despite great advances in the last century.
So for me this article raises wider questions that are very much out there in the public domain already- but which we still see very slow and frustrating changes.
I hear what you are saying .... and a good comment you make.
You should read Robert Shrimsley in the FT today - it will bring a smile to your face.
(Or is it possible to post a link?)
You know my IT skills tend to be rather basic!
Will have to return later- whizzing on and off LL again.
Jo.
I do distinctly remember reading the phrase by DC along the lines of:
"We will roll back the welfare state and enlist volunteers." (I think, Observer.)
Says it all really?
Hope to return later- but not sure when!
Have a good day, J.
According to the National Fraud Authority, tax avoidance (which accords, entirely, to the law of the land), was the same as "tax evasion" (definitely not law-abiding) in 2007/08, ie about £7 billion (not the £4.6 billion that the LibDems were touting in their now-discredited "manifesto").
Now, if you believe what any Liberal Democrat says to you, I am sure that you will be interested in this bridge that I just happen to know is coming up for sale.... :-)
Extraordinary comment. So there's no such thing as society, only individuals and families...no country, just individuals A and B.
"Extraordinary comment."
It was as plain as the balls on a dog that I was commenting from an accounting perspective, and if anyone has made an "extraordinary" comment, it is your good self.
"It was as plain as the balls on a dog that I was commenting from an accounting perspective, and if anyone has made an "extraordinary" comment, it is your good self. "
But from an accounting perspective, NI receipts go nowhere near covering benefits paid under the aegis of "national insurance", so those benefits cost the exchequer- the country- a huge amount which is not funded from NI receipts. Benefits- £186bn, NI take-£94bn So your extraordinary comment not only out-Thatchers Thatcher but is simply factually incorrect.
Social Security cash payments have two sources of funding : the NI Fund and general taxation. The scope of the NI fund is limited :
Retirement pensions
Widows and Guardians allowances
Jobseeker’s allowance
Incapacity benefit
Maternity benefit
Statutory sick pay
Statutory maternity pay
Social assistance is funded by general taxation :
War pensions and allowances
Income support
Income tax credits and reliefs
Child benefit
Non-contributory job seeker’s allowance
Care allowances
Disability benefits
Housing benefits
To repeat : within the scope and obligations of the NI Fund, receipts have exceeded expenditures every fiscal year 2000/01 to 2008/09, inclusive.
I've noticed a few really terse dialogues in the past, and it can get out of hand.
It's easy for any of us to just sound off at each other; but this is a public forum after all?
I think we all have valid and interesting points to make; but perhaps without inflamming tensions unnecessarily?
I do believe robust debate is possible without deriding each other on a personal level.
I think this applies to all of us-and makes LL a more civil place to inhabit.
Thankyou.
Yes, but it is also an online "community," and some of us have been around for some time, so get to know the dynamics.
I agree with Mark though- yes- let's stay on topic and leave the personally directed stuff out of it.
I bow to the moderators.
I've been quite liberal (so to speak) with the comments so far, but my patience only lasts so long
Let's stick to the point eh?
How do you conclude that? I don't see the distinction between welfare payments and any others, so surely by this definition defence, health, education et al cost us not a penny, because the money is simply 'transferred' between tax payers. That's particularly so because as far as I knew NI receipts are in no way ring-fenced to be offset against these payment, and from what I can tell from the figures, at about £95 bilion, don't nearly cover the £150 bn. Basically, if you cut welfare payments, government spending falls, so in what way is it incorrect to say it 'costs the exchequer', as Konrad did?
Or am I missing something.
"If you cut welfare payments, government spending falls ...."
You missed my point, Hugh (and that of any economist that you could care to read), "welfare payments" are not "government expenditure." They are transfer payments from those who have the moolah to those who don't.
As far as NI payments are concerned, the NI Fund absolutely is "ringfenced", by law, inasmuch as payments in cannot be used for current expenditure by other departments of state.
Regarding health, particularly, the NHS is a gigantic insurance scheme whereby government (in theory) guarantees you health treatment because you have paid taxes in proportion to a combination of your income and wealth (your "insurance premium").
If you are unfortunate enough to have an accident (road, mugging, heart attack, whatever), the appropriate public services will swing into action with no questions asked because your "insurance premium" is absolutely assumed to have been paid.
The same principle applies to education and defence. Pay the "insurance" (ie taxes) and government will (in theory, again) "take care of you."
As a people and a nation, we all engage in the exchange of goods and services ; whether these goods and services are provided by the private sector, or the public sector, is immaterial in the aggregate.
It is, of course, another question as to who is the most "efficient" provider of these services.
On this last point I would submit that there is a question of psychology and national mood regarding what the British people would prefer ....
Raise or lower NI by 10 per cent, and in what way will the impact on government finances or the economy be different than that caused by a hike in income tax to raise the same amount? To give a further example, in 20, 30 or 50 years, or however many it is that actuaries reckon, the UK pension system is going to become unaffordable. Under your theory, what exactly would be the difference between paying for the shortfall by increased taxes or increased NI rates?
" ....NI payments don't cover the bill for the areas it is supposed to pay for ...."
This is incorrect.
If you take a look at Table 10.1 ("National Insurance Fund") in the Annual Abstract of Statistics 2010, you will see that contributions have exceeded expenditures for all fiscal years 2000/01 to 2008/09, inclusive, so that the accumulated funds in the NI Fund have increased from £19.87 billion (2000/01) to £53.28 billion in 2008/09.
The NI fund cannot be used for current expenditures in other departments of state - there is a prohibition in law. However, the accumulated funds can be lent for capital expenditures, and there is a line item in Table 10.1 "Income from investments", which I presume is the interest paid on the money lent out, although that's a presumption of mine.
"Income from investments" has risen from £884 million in 2000/01 to £2 billion in 2008/09.
It would take too long to go into the other parts of your comment, except to say that the actuaries haven't exactly covered themselves in glory this last ten years or so and my reaction when I read or hear anything from an actuary is to raech for the shovel and open the sack of salt.
got he link for the fraud vs tax figures
" .... got the link ..."
My pleasure, Ian.
Isn't the net wonderful?
Mike, this is purely apocryphal, but I do recall reading about (or hearing) an American saying that (something like this), "In the 1950s, I went out to work (plenty of jobs, no problem), bought a house, two children in the family, we managed quite well."
It was much the same in the UK (Harold Macmillan and his misquoted "you've never had it so good" speech in 1957, Bedford, if I remember correctly).
Something has gone wrong, Mike. Nowadays (and has been the case since 1972, the first great house-price rise), both-parent workers are almost the norm, too many working people are strapped for cash, and the optimismn of the 1950s and 1960s has been replaced by the pessimism ("get on yer bike"), post-Thatcher.
The triumph of capital over labour ....and the chickens are coming home to roost.
I just wonder if this "Big Society" ideology is predominantly about rolling back the state, and framing it in the langauge of "empowerment"- when if fact the net result may be the opposite.
(By withdrawing a core supportive infrastructure and services- especially towards those that need it the most.)
Your article reminded me of the social changes that occurred post war, especially in the 1950's; when there were a limited number of jobs, and a surplus of men returning from the war.
A big emphasis was placed on women and the domestic sphere, as if this was their whole identity. And yet they had proven how capable and on a par with men they could be in the workplace, with a whole range of "untraditional" skills.
A whole ideology sprung up about women "knowing their place" in the home, and in domestic roles.
Clearly we have moved on greatly since then, and there is far more flexibility in reality and perception.
But there are still very much "right wing" ideologies about female identities- seen very clearly in rag mags and tabloid newspapers.(See imagery and language in "Femail" etc.)
It is regressive and repressive, but presented as "empowering."
We are literally bombarded with it daily, and I do think it does damage to our psyche and alters perception- particularly to younger people and girls.
So for me you raise valid wider questions.
As regards the current economic situation, and the ideology about responses; I'm conscious of a few unpalatable effects.
For example: public service jobs are going to be hit very hard, and unemployment possibly soaring.
A huge percentage of these jobs are filled by women, working part time, and caring responsibilities, and lower paid than average, and compared to the private sector.
The swingeing cuts will affect levels of employment and pension rights, amongst the lowest paid.
What are the alternatives for a large group of the workforce?
Just aside from that, I also look back and remember John Major and his party using the phrase "family values" like a mantra.
I believe this mostly to be aimed at women as the "home makers."
We also heard from DC about marriage tax breaks etc, as if it was some kind of revolutionary new thinking about families.
Personally I see all these narratives about "Big Society" and "family values" as a cover for something else.Perhaps an ideology that makes certain assumptions that hark back to a "nostalgic" age, and constrained roles.
I think you are right Sally to dig deeper and question assumptions. We are all being patronised in this top down approach and being lectured to.
If this is genuine "empowerment"- then there should be a wide public debate that is completely unfettered by a selective agenda.
I've worked in the NHS for over 25 years, and to date, no one has asked mine or my ex colleagues opinions on radical changes to our services or roles.
These sweeping and potentially damaging changes and being pushed through at break neck speed in a purely autocratic and top down
approach.In health, education, the police, welfare state, and community services.
Where is there any evidence about wider consultation and a public debate?
I'm not denying there may some good intentions; but all this narrative seems to me tied up in a rigid ideology and set of beliefs.Whether it be on approach to the economy, dismantling our public services,or rolling back the welfare state.
Gender roles will be expected to fulfil their "duties" no doubt.
How did we go from "no society" in the 80's to "Big Society"
now? Maybe it is it not far off, but framed differently.
Thankyou Sally for an interesting perspective.
Jo.
I can see why the "women has to stay at home" thing has come about and it may well be that there are some Tories out there who believe this to be the case.
However to say the BS, (I quite like that abbreviation as introduced by a previous commentator) is more about what you do with millions of unemployed.
Think about it, they are going to cut benefit so people will have the luxory of living for less than £70.00 (I think that is what it is approx) a week. They will not be able to pay the ludicrous rents of Landlords/Landladies. Many may well become homeless.
We are not talking one or two people here. We are talking about numbers that if left "unttended" will become a serious political grouping if united.
They lost their jobs because of poor, weak policy decision making ultimately married to the ever so corrupt (as it always has been ) City Finance.
You only have to watch an episode of "Yes, Minister" and see them talking about bailing out banks (this was in the 1980's to learn that nothing has changed lol).
So these people will continue to witness elitist politicians swanning around London with their City pals and they might be a tad upset about it all.
Who can blame them?
So we sell them the idea that they have some kind of moral duty to work for nothing, feel good about it and go home (for those that still have one).
Remember more unemployment on the way as the public sector receiev their rewards for leading decent, hard working (many do)and fairly honest lives.
Will it wash?
In some ways yes it will, when Cameron talks about his ultimate intention of just trying to make society a better place (and detoxify the obvious truth about his party as you inferred Tories and New Labour have little regard for society or indeed for helping the needy - they don't do compassion unless their is a lucrative £ sign attached lol). But there are many people out there who really need and want to believe that MP's are out there to help them and cannot see the "con" for what it is as many contributors on LL have.
Additionally for many people where there is simply no work it may get them out of their prison like lives and get them to do something that increases their activity. When you have the choice of nothing or something which would you take, if it was offered? Some will and some won't.
The challenge Cameron faces lie with the expectation, he has been clever enough to use language to delibertely display his intention rather than risk placing himself in a position where a specific result is implied or referred to.
However the biggest challenge he really faces is with incentive.
People are not encouraged to do the "right thing" these days they are encouraged to buy the latest Game Console or the best perfume.
That is how propoganda and media (as I am sure you are fully aware) work these days, and so many impoverished peope whose expectations of life are very high, raised by the marketting ethos with which we generate for ourselves will be very, very angry and the anger is growing. It is a bit like the housing boom, it went on for a much longer period than anyone expected but when it hit it hit like a hurricane.
Though of course, life continues to go on (and we should all be grateful as in countries that have no welfare state people lost everything including thier lives which is what I witnessed first hand in Seoul as grown men simply lay down outside the tube station and lay down and waited for the Sun to kill them and of course in the States where entire communities and towns simply ceased to exist and peopel ended up living in tents.....(good old barbaric Neo-Liberalism).
So the big society is way the Right Wing MP's hope that the unfortunate do not exercise any real political momentum. By keeping them busy carrying out "noble" tasks rather than trying to make thier lives and communities better from their point of view
Really tragic last paragraph, and does illustrate where this can lead to for some; it is barbaric for the "invisible" sections of society.
When I visited New York in the 80's I saw the most extreme poverty on the streets I've ever witnessed in a lifetime.
And yet, in such an affluent and advanced city...
So I'm not in favour of extremes at either end of the political spectrum. But the hypocricy of some right wing narratives, and the damage it does to society is startling.
Look at the changes since the 1980's?
This might sound a bit cliched- but I look to countries with socially advanced models like Denmark and Sweden for inspiration. We need HUMANE models like these.
I see many problems as arising from extreme right wing ideologies; it widens the gap between richer and poorer to obscene levels.
But as you say, everyone is made to feel that we have a moral duty to accept the status quo, and fit into our assigned roles.
In the 21st century there is going to need to be far better choices, and genuine consensus of ideas- involving the public!
I'd like to civic forums, as well as decent and well resourced
public and community services.
For me- education and employment are at the top of the list.
Have to sign off for most of today- thankyou.
But one thing he does say, even in the communist era,
EVERYONE was entitled to basic life commodites, like accomodation, bread and milk. People were not left to starve on the streets."
Wow, you make it sound like How Green Was My Valley.
My uncle was born in Budapest in 1938. When he was a young lad his dad didnt come home from work one day. After a few more days my uncles mum baked a cake in a metal bath tub for my uncle and his brother and went looking for him. She came back a week later none the wiser.
Two years later my uncles father returned home. He had picked up off the streets for counter revolutionary activity (though he was never told what this was supposed to have been) and shipped off to a labour camp in the Soviet Union for two years.
Still, at least people werent left to starve in the streets...
Indeed but discussing the extremes of Communism or Fascism which have more in common with each other than the mainstream classical political positions is not really pertinent.
Authority enforced by the barrel of a rifle upon an unarmed peaceful civilian populace is never acceptable but is quite a stretch from flower arranging and the BS.
Like in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(Sorry couldn't resist)
No. Due to the rules of engagement. Though yes during the actual invasion as civilain casualties always occur in warfare as warfare is a bloody blight on this earth.
Perhaps, but it wasnt me harking back to the days of the gulags, show trials, brutal supression of dissent and AVH as some sort of lost golden era of social justice from which we can learn.
I said neither extremes were acceptable.
You don't need to talk to me about these aspects of history- I've heard it all first hand!
And I can assure you, there is no hint of a golden era.
I was making a basic point about provision of life's necessities for all.
A time when women could be a magistrate serving their community and also be involved in their community?
"...it surely won't work in bad times when hundreds of thousands of people are going to be made unemployed and then asked to run their local library or volunteer to be special constables."
Why shouldn't people volunteer to work for the benefit of their community? Why shouldn't they be encouraged and asked to do this?
roles with years of experience.
The voluntary sector already plays an incredibly important role in society, and is thriving; but it too needs funding and support.
Also, services like frontline policing should not be reliant on volunteers! Complimentary roles that are well supported, yes, but not just to bulk out services on the cheap.
I, for one, would like my librarians and police to be professionally trained and do not wish for them to be made redundant to be replaced by amateur volunteers - and certainly not for librarians and police officers to be made redundant and then asked to provide their services voluntarily for the same job.
So do I.
Volunteers - like Special Constables and library volunteers - do get professional training. Otherwise they can not do their roles oproperly.
Special constables receive a level of training, but not the full professional training of a f-t police officer. They are not a substitute.
Library volunteers: what sort of training do you anticipate that they receive? Again, they do not receive the training that a f-t librarian receives (postgraduate for the 'professional' posts).
In both cases, the positions are supplementary, but here we are presumably discussing redundancies in the professional posts and replacement by volunteers - at least, that was my impression from Sally's piece and from my expectation of what will happen. Still, I have other matters to attend now.
Library volunteers get the skills necessary to do the job. They are not information experts but they do fine if given the right training and most university and public libraries rely on them to one extent or another.
You can presume there will be redundacies but many places ioperate with some volunteer support in times of full employment or high unemployment.
Indeed, special constables are often the way that people gain experience to then go ahead and apply for a full time police job, but they would never be seen as a replacement for a full time policeman (I speak as a former police authority member)
I agree.
It should not be about assigned roles.
However, as you say, many have little economic choice.
So the key to me seems to be: help those at the bottom of the economic ladder as the top priority.
Many of those- are women working in low paid jobs in the public sector.
And yet they could be a large group hit the hardest, as public services are being dismantled, and for ideological reasons:
"rolling back the welfare stste and enlisting voulnteers."
Never mind about piffling policies on marriage tax breaks for people on middle incomes!
You lot want to FORCE people to do this not to do out of a sense of pride or wanting to do that, not all people are middle and upper class with loads of time to spare in their lives.
As to Cameron's mum, I doubt she ever had a proper job to do or the stress of running an home without a cleaner, cook or nanny. she sent he son away to get rid of him so had hours and hours to volunteer away
the BS relies on a notion that in 21st century does not exist that people with busy lives have time to spare, all a con as Davies eloquently explained.
Force? I didn't say that and neither did 'my lot' whoever they may be in your world of imagination and assumption.
"As to Cameron's mum, I doubt she ever had a proper job ..."
More assumption and a vicious putting down of a person you don't know but who did work for her community. Bravo.
Many people work in the volunteer sector and manage to run a house. And many of us do have time to spare but we instead watch X Factor, play the X Box, surf the net, go to the gym then McDonalds, etc.
This is the propoganda they would have us believe about "scoungers." May apply to a few, but not the majority.
I have worked as a Health Visitor in deprived estates and seen first hand.
Some don't work becuase of disabilities or health problems; others are full time carers.
Sometimes it becuase local areas have no suitable employment. We hear of many cases where skilled and experienced people are applying for menial jobs and up against large numbers in competition.
Community spirit is indeed what's needed to build up our social fabric; but increasing unemployment and pretending that volunteers can fulfil professional roles is deluded
by govt.
I believe this is unpaid labour.
And I am totally in favour of voluntary action; but it is not a replacement for professionally trained work in essential services.
But I know from when i/ friends / family were unemployed there is downtime and it is the downtime that is so corrosive on morale.
For example, if the labour exchange had said - sign in with us on X day and on Y and Z days report to ABC where you will help paint a fence, pick up litter, help at a library, do some word processing for a charity, etc, I would have resented it a bit but them been glad to have something to fill my time and would have been spurred onto work harder when I was not doing that.
It wouldn't work for all but it would work for many.
Therefore there would be a large pool of potential assistants for charities and public sector bodies that need the manpower and could be assigned based on their skills and expenses.
People may not want to help out in this way but at the end of the day unemployment benefits are a means of assisting individuals who are temporarily out of work not a god given right to sit at home until you find something else.
It is also, as Konrad mentions above, very easy to lose moral when you have too much downtime and it is not helpful for your CV to have long periods of unemployment as compared to periods of volunteer work which shows willing and ability to adapt to new environments, and can actually give people new skills and training.
I agree unemployemnt can be corrosive and morale sapping.
I think there should be great support given- but this should be geared up around individual needs, not "one size fits all."
What I'm objecting to is the "moralistic" langauge around "scroungers" that we so often hear about in the right wing tabloid media, and the posters leading up to the election from DC and the Tories..
It's a blame game for political motives.
I have to sign off now.
You just can't do it around individual needs as such needs are too many. '12 sizes fits all' perhaps - 12 options instead of one so you must choose one of them but at least then there is some leeway.
It's moralistic because many of us see those who take dole money without an intention of work as basically stealing from the rest of us which is immoral. Plenty of examples of it about sadly.
course people cheat systems, no system is fool proof, what do you intend to do Konrad about those people who avoid their tax duty, which costs us far more
'...what do you intend to do about those people who avoid their tax duty, which costs us far more.'
Go after them. Get back what the owe / should pay.
Dole scrounging most certainly does exist, however it is wrong and profoundly foolish to worry about it during a recession where millions have been made redundent. This is the time when the Nation has to stand together to get out of the mess.
Instead this Parliament and media just pushes City policy further forwards to see how far it can go and what it can get away with.
Over the last year or so we find ourselves in a situation where people have been living the lives of Reilly and taking people to cleaners in both the private and public sectors in a manner which has caused great harm to the very institutions that have rewarded them and looked after them.
We are not talking about the sum total spent on Welfare which is a mere trickle compared to the hundreds of billions of pounds thier madness has cost this country and yet with only a fraction of the blame levelled at the most vulnerable people in society who all villified for the crimes of the few.
It is completely out of balance, unfair and not feasable for any form of justification whatsoever as it make even double standards seem a blatent understatement.
We have real problems with our establishment infrastructure which pose a National threat and which has caused more damage to our lives and way of life than any enemy we have gone to War with in fifty years.
So I think we need to keep a sense of perspective here and focus on solving the problems that are very real and I am relieved by the Governmnet (though cautiously skeptical and keenly awaiting any results) saying it will address some of the root causes in the City (do I believe they will....no).
Since when did standing together mean tolerating fraud and theft from other people? Why should we turn a blind eye to scroungers in an hour of crisis? All you do with that is create more welfare dependency and people who think its okay to fiddle the dole.
'City policy'? Do you mean making and saving money?
"In 2008/09, gross income tax receipts were £152.5 billion. In the same year, social security benefits cost the Exchequer £150.1 billion."
"£850bn: official cost of the bank bailout"
£150.1 billion against £850 billion . Not exactly trickle versus flood is it?
If you want fairness brother you're on the wrong planet.
No City Policy is not about "making and saving" money at least not unless you work in the City yourself lol.
If you place faith in people who almost wrecked the very machinery (which stopped encouraging peope to save and make money a long time ago as you'll notice with all the fees you pay your bank if you are self-employed or employed) then you get pretty much what you deserve, for them to take you deservedly to the cleaners.
In terms of the total welfare bill I cannot do much with that as it operates on your premise that all welfare recipients are guilty of committing some form of crime.
Well if you look at the numbers of people involved with the bank bailout and the numbers of people actually committing an offence I think you'll find me to be on planet earth "brother".
As for the solution to Welfare as I have said on many occasions the MP's are chasing their own tails, you have to sort out the underlying economic problems first, this has not happened due to the culture in Parliament that is dependent on maintaining the status quo and ignoring reality.
Only now are we even beginning to hear language which is even close to sorting out the long-term economic woes of this country and only because the banking collapse shocked the MP's into having to accept things were out of kilter. And as we have seen many MP's are even now still in denial and depending on the same old flawed and recklessly dangerous widespread economic de-regulatory nonesense.
You need rules for a fair match in any competition and only where competition is utterly stifled by monopolisation (which to all states and purposes operates as a huge single state own inefficient giant entity as the banks have) do you find the demand for no rules at all.
Sort out your economy, first and primary concern that should be an obsession for all serious MP's because you can bet China, India, S. Korea and Japan are not just sitting around making things as easy as possible for current commercial concerns they are pushing ahead and looking to the future and waiting for nobody.
Various political parties / governments have almost wrecked the very machinery of government, community cohension, economics, trust, the state, the Union, etc and yet we still keep going back to them.
£150.1 billion against £850 billion showed that your declaration that ‘…Welfare which is a mere trickle…’ was wrong.
No one is saying that all recipients are guilty of a crime (you’re projecting) it’s just a number but I think all sane people from all parties would ask ‘We pay that? What for? To who? Why? Surely that’s wrong and there’s a better way?’
Planet earth? Its not a fair place other than in the imagination so you must be on a different one to the other 6 billion of us. A nice thought but you’d need to create the New Men.
Perhaps - just perhaps - sorting out the economy means not paying out £150 BILLION every single year?
City Policy has not and will never be to save money Konrad at least it was not when I was there. The more money they could get from Central Governmnet the better.
You cannot use the full welfare figure when the core of your argument has been all along that it is the the people who abuse welfare who need addressing. You are using the wrong figure to back up your position. What you should have done is use the estimated figure for Welfare fraud unless of course your whole argument is to scrap welfare completely.
The Earth is not an inherently fair place Konrad, I never said it was, but unlike many species that inhabit it we are able to make conscious decisions which you highlight very well in the questioning of the total welfare amount.
The difference between 150 billion and 850 billion is 700 billion which is a hell of a lot.
Not to mention the addiotion of interest to said debt which I believe the Tory leaders are more than happy to remind us of daily.
Benefits pay for things Konrad, people having nothing pays for nothing and I have yet to see or meet a business man who will refuse to sell a product due to the fact the customer being on benefit.
This is a very important principle which you may observe if you visit a country where there are no benefits.
But as I made very clearly before (incidently I have on countless occasions commented of the Political failure and it's implication in Government) we need to address the economy as a matter of primacy and invest in the relevant skills training that businesses are calling for and plan for the future rather than just run around flapping at a single Governmnet figure.
Solutions exist and we should focus on them rather than lose our heads.
You cut the money to people you simply stop spending money goods. Unless you replace it with something which is going to provide work or actually address the underlying problem or issues you are just going to end up creating further social problems which will end up costing you more money.
As we witnessed at length, again and again in the 1980's and 1990's.
It will be very interesting to see what shape and form Ian Duncan Smith's Welfare Bill will take as amongst Tory politicians he seems to be very pragmatic, but we will see, he is after all a Tory.
You were wrong about the welfare bill being trickle when compared to the bank bailout, please just have the decency and honesty to admit this. 700 billion is a lot but 150 billion is not a trickle and when you think welfare spends 850 billion in 6 years it puts it into even greater perspective.
Welfare costs this nation a huge amount and this needs to be addressed at all levels. One level is the people who swindle the system, another would be the admin costs, another what we get for our money, another is who should actually be entitled to benefits, another is if we should spend it on giving people cash to do what they like with or if we should use it to pay for training, etc.
Why shouldn’t the government remind us of how much we are in debt due in no small part to the previous administration?
You cut the money to some people they get a job. You cut the money to some people, they lose their ill gotten gains. You cut the money to some people they have to live within their means. You cut the money to some people they suffer.
I did not say "We are talking about the sum total spent on Welfare which is a mere trickle......"
Yes?
I never said the Government should or should not talk about the previous Government's role in the Banking crises, in fact it was David Cameron who alone amongst all the politicians actually made a public apology on BBC News for the role the Tories had played in their part too as the policy was advocated by them originally and that was based upon the de-regulatory position. I actually commended Cameron at the time for doing so, though of course it wa a mere strategic move as he knew Gb would never apologise for the role of the PLP in the policy.
In terms of streamlining Welfare, nobody has really tried it yet, ironically the very process itself is full of paper work which is designed to prevent fraud but like all fool proof systems it is great at preventing good, decent people from committing fraud but at the same time not much use at stopping very clever conmen and women.
What is your position on those who refuse to take welfare (Like me) as technically I was advised to go on ESA when i was diagnosed with a chronic illness but as a consequence of not going on ESA could lose out due to not paying National Insurance Contributions?
Now there is an injustice ;)
Fortunately I have my savings...but others how do they cope?
Spin it anyway you like, this statement was wrong.
150 billion versus 850 billion. Both massive sums with welfare spending in 6 years the same as the bailout cost.
The welfare bill is not small, nor is it small compared to the bailout.
Refuse to take welfare? Good. Fine. Laudable.
It is not spin it is the English language. You know I was discussing welfare abuse as for me the Welfare State is a must and I would never, ever as a Labour Politician, and more importantly as a Labour member ever question it's existence because I see the good it does for good people daily.
You don't have to question its existence but you can say '£150 BILLION a year? Are we insane? How did we end up here This is madness. What can we be spening this money on and yet STILL have so many social and economic problems and NEETS'?
If you are going to say somebody is wrong on a point of debate you are meant to do so with the correct context and on the point raised. Not just say it and hope that makes it the case lol.
There are many things happening at the moment that raise the issue of sanity, banking is a clear leader here lol.
As I said politicians have ignored the core economic issues for far too long mainly because they were unequipped to dealing with economists and media moguls despite the methods they attempted to employ to counter them, which clearly did not work because they still ended up pandering to the media at the end result lol.
The economy is the core issue that leads to or from welfare and that is where the answer turly lies except where people have to leave the economy as a result of sickness, ill-health or are simply laid off.
In my view the whole point of the Labour Party is to patch people up as far as it can so that it can put people back in control of their own lives with as my dear colleague Peter Barnard makes clear, a sense of dignity.
I happen to believe that both self-employed and employed people need greater protections because life in the private sector is too harsh and the fear it creates hampers boldness and innovation, i also believe that with regard to pensions etc there needs to be a collective agreement thant unifies the public and private sectors at a minimal level with the freedom to permit peope to invest more in a secure manner if they so choose.
These are areas I am deeply passionate about. I think the Labour Party can easily take a lead here.
The cost of total welfare is one of the problems we face, there are many others too and the fact remains and will never depart; that we have as a matter of priority before all other considerations to decide whether or not we want to be serious economic players in the World or stick to a feeble service economy.
I know which one I want!
Look at the payoff of Tony Hayward of BP, now that is fraudulent.
Greed
that is what the tories are about, that is what they strive for, selfish greed of the indivdual over everyone else.
They pander to base instincts that greed is good for you and eff your neighbour in trouble.
Although they have already had £1,500,000,000,000 in the last 2 years.
Yes 10 times the whole deficit, wait a minute lets take some money off the blind, they won't see us.
So they have huge funds in reserve with no worthwhile place to invest them as the demand in the economy is dead.
I know what they could do with it, pay off this years deficit which they caused.
What a good time to be a monopoly capitalist!!
British Gas announcing £2 billion in profits. How can anyone justify this?
Interesting that we provide winter fuel payments to pensioners who then spend it on Gas. Ironically, we are all subsidising the profits of a monopoly out of taxation, when what we should be doing is dealing with the monopoly capitalist.
And they bother about a few benefit scroungers!!
Any trader with a market share of 25% or more has such power in price setting as to effectively act as a monopoly. It makes "super profits" over and above what it should if there was real competition.
There are no other serious competitors in the gas market.
Tesco has reached that point, but at least there are some other big players.
Well said.
Many are sleeping, many are stupid enough to go along with it, but you are very much awake!
But nobody really knows what is happening at the moment, the people are very quiet and many are finding healthy outlets for their anger at the state of things.
British put up with a lot I just hope to heaven that the MP's appreciate that they do and start to give them the respect they deserve.
When you go canvassing Hazico you meet many people who really are going through a hard time and you see for yourself how they cope with it, from one man who was literally dying of cancer (I did not bother to push any politics on the poor fella for obvious reasons) to three generations having to share a two bedroom house with the grany and grandpa sleeping on the living room floor.
That is where we are NOW.
Where we are going I dread to think. The reason I find it so difficult to get angry about the Tories is because I cannot believe for the life of me how the PLP let things get this bad.
You can see my position now. But the people cheer me up because they are so very strong and many do not go out and commit crime or do terrible things.
Then I see how much the PLP have got in prestige and wealth and it leaves me feeling rather...embarressed to say the least.
It makes me feel genuinly ashamed. I can be ruthless Hazico and may have to be eventually but not on the people, but certainly, more than certainly upon those who in my view have failed to even act as they should have, they should have been taking this very message to Parliament.
Blimey they even managed this in the century before the last one.
We have a big job to do in the Labour Party and the reality of the situation was more than evident when I listened to a lengthy but eloquent speech by our executive member who deals with housing and at the real fear that goes with his position.
Because we have to deliver now in Barking and there is no money..............good thing I was not foolish enough to promise anything moe than fighting (democractically speaking) for the interests of the Constituents.
It's just that I am unsure who I should be fighting....one lot of "superior" MP's seems to be as bad as the others.
Jo.
as for Cameron's mum given the background did she do a proper 9-5 job, for sure she di not have to look after little Dave for years whilst at school unlike 99% of working mums in this country
Why not find out rather than wallow in prejudices and envy?
I strongly suggest you improve your understanding of what Cameron is actually doing or attempting to do.
I recommend that you visit say, a think tank. Politicians like think tanks.
Try the one James Purnell has just been made Chair of you will find lots of interesting ideas (not sure about the pragmatics of some of them though lol, though others the more common sense based ones are ok) but at least it will give you an idea of the real role Labour is playing in the Big Society.
Labour should be playing one role and one role alone in the con of the 'Big Society'. Opposing it. I don't believe its the way we should be going
I think people from all political spectrums are finding the BS
deeply dubious in practice.
I agree- we should be showing at every turn what it means in reality.
"Rolling back the welfare state!"
Jo
I think she has recognised what the real agenda is - make people redundant, lessen opportunities for women, and shrink the state. Its what Tories want.
Words fail me. For goodness sake, enough of the stereotypes.'Exciting'?
Maybe people would take LL more seriously if people could get beyond empty "Tory's bad cause they want to destroy the country" rhetoric and focus on specific issues and policies that they want to disagree with or offer alternatives to.