Cameron's BS: What's it all about?

[ArrowsFA1]

Cameron says "the big society is my mission in politics" (link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/14/david-cameron-big-society-savers)) but what is it?

[Rollo]

As we've seen with the threatened closure of libraries, changes to the NHS, and the knives hanging over the BBC World Service, Radio 7, Radio 3 etc. Cameron's "big society" in broad terms is for government to step out of its current obligations and have things run by community groups instead.
Basically "big society" is the total abrogation of government responsibility if it can get away with it.

I'd suggest that the first thing to do would be to privatise parliament, flog off the Houses of Parliament because that's prime real estate bang in the middle of London, then retrench Cameron because his position is redundant.
Belgium proves that a country can survive perfectly happily without a government, so how about it?

[Mark]

To my mind it basically means services being run not by professionals who have worked their entire career in the subject and know it back to front, but instead a bunch of interfering busy-bodies who think they better how to run things because they once saw a documentary and read and article in the Daily Mail.

[Retro Formula 1]

It seems to be fashionable to question what the Big Society is but it seems pretty clear.

It's a desire and will to take responsibility for local matters and inititives away from Central Government and hand it over to the people that will run and benefit from it.

Doesn't seem to difficult a concept to understand.

Will it work? I don't know but it sounds like an ideal that should be attempted. Reducing central Governments mass in favour of less bureaucratic, locally targeted and operated inititives seems logical to me.

[ArrowsFA1]

It's a desire and will to take responsibility for local matters and inititives away from Central Government and hand it over to the people that will run and benefit from it.
Doesn't that desire and will exist regardless of government, and hasn't it done so for as long as anyone can remember?

Putting an ideological label on something, along with a structure and a government department, only appears to add a layer of central government influence & control.

[Dave B]

When one is asked to volunteer, is one still a volunteer?

The "Big Society" is a beautiful idea in theory, but the reality is it'll never work without a massive amount of funding. It's all very well for Doris to help out in her local community now and then, but when it's expected of her and she has to pay for her petrol, public liability insurance, CRB checks, training... well she's going to question whether it's worth it.

It's a sop to cover the fact that massive and barbaric cuts are being made to basic public services like libraries, Surestart & public toilets because of a flawed ideological campaign by Cameron, backed up by his tame puppet Clegg.

A former conservative minister - David Mellor - has described the plans as going down like a lead balloon (source) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356730/Big-Society-mission-vows-David-Cameron-Tories-sniping-lead-balloon-policy.html) , and even the PM has admitted over the weekend that they'll need to look carefully at how this BS is funded.

In a few years we'll look back on this in the same way we regard John Major's "Back To Basics" crusade.

[Retro Formula 1]

Arrows. I thought you didn't understand what it was all about, yet understand the structure and ramifications? ;)

I must admit, I understand the principles but not the details yet it seems that we are ready to condemn this without looking at it rationally. Is that because it's Cameron behind it?

We are in a serious economic mess and yes, there are going to be stringent cuts. Central Government is bloated and cannot be sustained at current levels.

How do we manage this transition so end users have more responsibility for their own destiny rather than relying on the state all the time to wipe their arses. If this isn't the answer, what is?

[Rollo]

Ah:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/mutual-futures-public-services-swindon
Swindon Intermediate Care Centre Commissioned by NHS Swindon and Swindon Borough Council is part of one of the first Mutual Pathfinders, leading the way for many other public sector entrepreneurs who want to take ownership of the services they provide. John Lewis Partnership is sharing its experience of employee ownership with the Swindon pathfinder to help it develop its plan to become a mutual.
Found it.

"Big Society" is about forming mutual societies from existing social services rather than quangos.
...so that at a later point they can all be flogged off via dedemutualization later. It's an idea that worked so well in the colonies, that Britian wants to have a go at it.

[ArrowsFA1]

I must admit, I understand the principles but not the details yet it seems that we are ready to condemn this without looking at it rationally. Is that because it's Cameron behind it?
This is very much Cameron's policy so obviously he personally will be the focus whether it succeeds or fails.

That's not the reason for me questioning it though. My concern is that it's something dreamt up by an advertising firm to "sell" an idea in an attempt to establish a "legacy" for Cameron as PM, but the idea has no substance, or is so woolly that it is meaningless, or is simply a label stuck on something that people around the country do already.

I seem to remember that the BS was raised as a policy by Cameron during the general election but, because it was not explained well or it received such a poor reception, it was dropped very quickly by the Tories. Clearly that didn't deter the PM.


"There are things we are already doing we are trying to re-badge as big society - trying to show that they are in line with the big society," said one civil servant in a large Whitehall department, who did not want to be named.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12163624


Sir Stephen Bubb, who heads the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, said charities and social enterprises were already having to make redundancies and scale back their work. He told Sky News: "You can hardly build a bigger society if the very people at the heart of that vision are cutting back on the work they do."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12443396

[THE_LIBERATOR]

I thought the idea was to make some public sector workers redundant, forcing them onto Jobseekers Allowance & then make them return to their jobs as volunteers to earn their dole?

[Retro Formula 1]

I'm not argueing for the sake of it but really am trying to figure out what we are saying here.

Initially we start out by claiming nobody understands what it's all about, then it's woolly vapour ware dreamt up by a PR company, then it's adding another layer of government, then it's sucessfully being practiced already?

All this by an intelligent and normally rational forum member???

I refuse to dismiss this out of hand before understanding what is possible to be achieved and what the benefit would be. I know people are upset because of shrinking budgets while Central Government is seeking to reduce it's influence but in the current economic situation, this was always going to be the case.

Are we all being as objective here as we should be?

[Mark]

I just think it's a bad case of wishful thinking if you think that teams of people are going to volunteer to take over / run public services - even if still government funded. Most are struggling with working some of the longest hours in Europe, and with some of the longest commutes to pay some of the biggest mortgages, who's got time for all that?

[Dave B]

...who's got time for all that?
Soon, 490000 people will have :s

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/19/spending-review-document-job-cuts

[ArrowsFA1]

Initially we start out by claiming nobody understands what it's all about...
I began by asking what is the "Big Society". I'm not clear, and I'm not sure how many people are. Given that it's in the news it might be worth talking about.

...then it's woolly vapour ware dreamt up by a PR company...
It appears to be more marketing than substance i.e. the wish to sell Cameron as the man with the "big idea", rather than the man leading a government intent on implementing damaging cutbacks.

...then it's adding another layer of government...
It appears to be government stepping in to areas where people already do great voluntary & community work. That's adding another layer.

...then it's sucessfully being practiced already?
No. There is good voluntary and community work going on all around the country, that was being done long before the BS was talked about and will continue after the BS has been forgotten. It doesn't need a label stuck on it, particularly by the same goverment that is cutting back on the funding that helps deliver that existing work.

[Retro Formula 1]

I just think it's a bad case of wishful thinking if you think that teams of people are going to volunteer to take over / run public services - even if still government funded. Most are struggling with working some of the longest hours in Europe, and with some of the longest commutes to pay some of the biggest mortgages, who's got time for all that?

Ahh, at last. An objective view.

Is that what the Big Society is? Just expecting people to give their time free and run services that previously were operated by Public workers. If that is the case then it hasn't got a cat in hells chance but I don't think it is.

I think there is an element of community co-operation, in a similar way to a School Board of Governers, but that must be only part of it.

I thought the big society was about decentralizing government, devolving central power and giving local communities more say in how they operate local services. The introduction of co-operatives, mutually operated services and enterprises.

Basically, taking local decision making power away from the faceless buearucrats in Whitehall and putting it in the hand of people it directly influences.

I know that I trust the real people that make up the Governers of my Local School more than the sometimes senseless and irrelevant dictates that filter down from some working group or think tank in Westminster so am wondering whether this can be expanded. It might work and it might not but I would like to know more about this. After all, isn't this "Power to the People Citizen" ;)

[Daniel]

To my mind it basically means services being run not by professionals who have worked their entire career in the subject and know it back to front, but instead a bunch of interfering busy-bodies who think they better how to run things because they once saw a documentary and read and article in the Daily Mail.

So basically like local government where all the councillors are people who are bored now that they're retired and want to interfere in things which they have little knowledge of.

[Retro Formula 1]

So basically like local government where all the councillors are people who are bored now that they're retired and want to interfere in things which they have little knowledge of.

Another sweeping generalisation :rolleyes:

Are you sure you're not a closet Daily Mail reader :D

[Daniel]

Ahh, at last. An objective view.

Is that what the Big Society is? Just expecting people to give their time free and run services that previously were operated by Public workers. If that is the case then it hasn't got a cat in hells chance but I don't think it is.

I think there is an element of community co-operation, in a similar way to a School Board of Governers, but that must be only part of it.

I thought the big society was about decentralizing government, devolving central power and giving local communities more say in how they operate local services. The introduction of co-operatives, mutually operated services and enterprises.

Basically, taking local decision making power away from the faceless buearucrats in Whitehall and putting it in the hand of people it directly influences.

I know that I trust the real people that make up the Governers of my Local School more than the sometimes senseless and irrelevant dictates that filter down from some working group or think tank in Westminster so am wondering whether this can be expanded. It might work and it might not but I would like to know more about this. After all, isn't this "Power to the People Citizen" ;)

Tbh after a personal experience I had with a rather ignorant moron of a school governor at a school I don't agree.

There are good governors and bad governors and good and bad faceless people in thinktanks.

[Daniel]

Another sweeping generalisation :rolleyes:

Are you sure you're not a closet Daily Mail reader :D

I probably shouldn't be posting at work. Can you email me @ daniel.**********@*******shire.gov.uk ? ;)

It might be a generalisation, but it comes from personal experience :)

[Mark]

The main problem is the people who don't work for a living and actually have time for this, and the motivation to actually do it, quite often have extreme views at odds with the majority of the population - local government does suffer from the same problem.

Which is why you have traffic calming, one way systems etc imposed on you, because the anti-car nuts are ruling the way for example.

[Dave B]

Indeed. The danger with this is the people who (are able to) shout the loudest will get the most benefit.

[Mark]

Basically, taking local decision making power away from the faceless buearucrats in Whitehall and putting it in the hand of people it directly influences.


But isn't that local government? At least they have elected representatives..

[Daniel]

Indeed. The danger with this is the people who (are able to) shout the loudest will get the most benefit.

I can tell you from experience of working in a council that this NEVER happens! EVER!!!!

[Retro Formula 1]

So, because of the fear of change, or generalistic examples of bad experience, or dare I say uncertainty and worry about what will happen to those employeed in the Public sector, we should not change.

Sorry, but that isn't an option. The current system doesn't work and more onus needs to be on personal responsibility rather than expecting the state to molly-coddle us.

I really fail to see the logic or wisdom in entrusting all decision making powers to central government and the civil service rather than locally accountable and involved people. Some people here may be happy to moan about others doing their best but I hope there are some of us that would get off our backsides and try and make a difference.

[Dave B]

Francis Maude MP, put on the spot on Radio Four's Today programme. So what volunteering do you do? Erm...

http://audioboo.fm/boos/155599-eddie-mair-putting-francis-maude-on-the-spot-what-volunteering-do-you-do

[Dave B]

So, because of the fear of change, or generalistic examples of bad experience, or dare I say uncertainty and worry about what will happen to those employeed in the Public sector, we should not change.

Sorry, but that isn't an option. The current system doesn't work and more onus needs to be on personal responsibility rather than expecting the state to molly-coddle us.

I really fail to see the logic or wisdom in entrusting all decision making powers to central government and the civil service rather than locally accountable and involved people. Some people here may be happy to moan about others doing their best but I hope there are some of us that would get off our backsides and try and make a difference.

So who's going to pay for us to do all this volunteering? I could ferry some old folk about but I'd need public liability insurance and business cover for the car. Or I could go and mow some grass verges in local streets now they're looking untidy in spring, but who's paying for commercial waste disposal because I can't put all that grass in my domestic recycling? Maybe I could help out at the local library - but if they close it I can't afford the rent on the site or the utility bills to keep the lights on.

Costs a lot to volunteer, it does.

[ArrowsFA1]

Here's what David Cameron had to say about his Big Society today:


"We do need a social recovery to mend the broken society and to me, that's what the Big Society is all about."[/*:m:1553764n]
"I don't believe it is impossible to do your duty at the same time as having a sense of mission and purpose about what would make this country stronger, better, a nicer place to live."[/*:m:1553764n]
"What this is all about is giving people more power and control to improve their lives and communities." [/*:m:1553764n]
"It's not a cover for anything, it is a good thing to try and build a bigger and stronger society whatever is happening to public spending."[/*:m:1553764n]
"This is my absolute passion, I think it's a different way of governing, a different way of going about trying to change our country for the better and it's going to get every bit of my passion and attention over the five years of this government."[/*:m:1553764n]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12443396

[Dave B]

Here's what David Cameron had to say about his Big Society today:


"We do need a social recovery to mend the broken society and to me, that's what the Big Society is all about."[/*:m:3q851rbe]
"I don't believe it is impossible to do your duty at the same time as having a sense of mission and purpose about what would make this country stronger, better, a nicer place to live."[/*:m:3q851rbe]
"What this is all about is giving people more power and control to improve their lives and communities." [/*:m:3q851rbe]
"It's not a cover for anything, it is a good thing to try and build a bigger and stronger society whatever is happening to public spending."[/*:m:3q851rbe]
"This is my absolute passion, I think it's a different way of governing, a different way of going about trying to change our country for the better and it's going to get every bit of my passion and attention over the five years of this government."[/*:m:3q851rbe]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12443396

All very laudable aims, but as David Brent's boss told him, "it's all beginning to sound like management-speak".

[Sleeper]

Until we get some proper details on how it will all work, BS is all it will remain.

[Rollo]

All very laudable aims, but as David Brent's boss told him, "it's all beginning to sound like management-speak".

It all sounds rather like the caller Jeff from Grand Theft Auto 3:
"It's about justice, Mr. Low! A chance to shine and make a difference! About thousands of people walking side-by-side as brother marchers. Only one thing on their minds - the chance to make a difference! Bring your friends!
Nothing shows a man how much you mean to him more than the chance to walk together for justice! Bring your kids! They can paint signs, and we'll even have a face-painter, and a vegen bar-be-que. Bring your parents, dude, even the elderly care about tomorrow!"

The scary thing is that the above was intended as satire but looks like it has morphed into actual rhetoric.

[veeten]

Here's what David Cameron had to say about his Big Society today:


"We do need a social recovery to mend the broken society and to me, that's what the Big Society is all about."[/*:m:1jrpxwfe]
"I don't believe it is impossible to do your duty at the same time as having a sense of mission and purpose about what would make this country stronger, better, a nicer place to live."[/*:m:1jrpxwfe]
"What this is all about is giving people more power and control to improve their lives and communities."[/*:m:1jrpxwfe]
"It's not a cover for anything, it is a good thing to try and build a bigger and stronger society whatever is happening to public spending."[/*:m:1jrpxwfe]
"This is my absolute passion, I think it's a different way of governing, a different way of going about trying to change our country for the better and it's going to get every bit of my passion and attention over the five years of this government."[/*:m:1jrpxwfe]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12443396

Geez... he was a half-step from using Kennedy's famous "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" speech. And he (Kennedy) was instrumental in creating the Peace Corps.

[ShiftingGears]

It all sounds rather like the caller Jeff from Grand Theft Auto 3:
"It's about justice, Mr. Low! A chance to shine and make a difference! About thousands of people walking side-by-side as brother marchers. Only one thing on their minds - the chance to make a difference! Bring your friends!
Nothing shows a man how much you mean to him more than the chance to walk together for justice! Bring your kids! They can paint signs, and we'll even have a face-painter, and a vegen bar-be-que. Bring your parents, dude, even the elderly care about tomorrow!"

The scary thing is that the above was intended as satire but looks like it has morphed into actual rhetoric.

The quality of GTA radio is very underrated.




As for this thread - what is this excruciating meaningless nonsense?

[THE_LIBERATOR]

I move for means tested expenses for MPs, that way if they are in need they would get help. Be part of the Big Society, refuse expenses for the greater good.

& They say the ****ing class war is dead!!

[Retro Formula 1]

Why?

If MP's incurr legitimate expenses during the course of their work, they should be refunded.

A lot of MP's do a very valid and worthwhile job. OK, I agree, the former expenses policy was wrong and seen as a self regulated bonus system but this has now quite rightly been stamped out. Hopefully there is a fairer policy in place now but people shouldn't be discriminated against because of their worth should they?

The ****ing class war is alive and kicking my friend as you've just demonstrated.

[BDunnell]

Would this even be taken seriously for a second were the state of the public finances so appalling? No.

Would the Lib Dems be castigating the Big Society as a gimmick if they were still in opposition rather than part of a coalition? Yes.

Are the people who have the time to engage in Big Society initiatives the sort of people we want running even the smallest local services? Probably not. They will most likely be the sort of individuals who currently devote their time to Neighbourhood Watch, town twinning and parish councils, i.e. the retired. No-one with a promising career still ahead of them, whether in the public or private sector, will realistically decide to give that up in favour of Big Society projects. Nick Clegg, for example, has said that it would be impossible for him to play a role in the Big Society, because he has a job and family commitments.

In short, it will fail, and it will deserve to fail.

[Dave B]

Heard a joke the other day, if the Big Society had been around in Sparticus' time.

I'M Sparticus.

Yes. Yes he is. Him. Bye.

[ArrowsFA1]

Interesting to see that the government has dropped plans to sell-off public woodland (link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12488847)). It was said to be the Big Society in action - selling off public woodland and it being run by the private sector, community and charitable groups.

This kind of work is already happening and has been for decades. The Woodland Trust (http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/Pages/default.aspx), for example, was founded in 1972.

Whether it be woodland or the Liverpool showcase (link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/03/liverpool-big-society)) the Big Society concept either isn't supported, doesn't work, or already exists without the need for a new label and Cameron claiming credit.

Cameron should support those existing organisations, and the people running them, who are doing the kind of "big society" work he is said to have a passion for, instead of cutting funding and trying to make out he has this "grand new idea" for us all.

[Mark]

Interesting to see that the government has dropped plans to sell-off public woodland (link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12488847)). It was said to be the Big Society in action - selling off public woodland and it being run by the private sector, community and charitable groups.


No different to selling off e.g. British Gas, British Airways, British Rail, the electricity companies etc etc.

[Dave B]

Oddly, in PMQs (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/02.htm) yesterday, Cameron said that the forests sell-off was out to consultation and that no decision had been made. Less than 18 hours later the policy was dropped. Did he mislead the house? Or was he just trying to make Miliband look stupid (which admittedly isn't that difficult)?


Edward Miliband: Even the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate the irony: he, the guy who made the tree the symbol of the Conservative party, flogging them off up and down this country. He says that they are consulting on the policy; they are actually consulting on how to flog off the forests, not on whether to flog off the forests. Is the Prime Minister now saying that he might drop the policy completely?

The Prime Minister: I would have thought that the whole point of a consultation is that you put forward some proposals, you listen to the answer and then you make a decision. I know it is a totally alien concept, but what is so complicated about that?

Edward Miliband: Everybody knows that the right hon. Gentleman is going to have drop this ludicrous policy. Let me give him the chance to do so. Nobody voted for the policy; 500,000 people have signed a petition against it. When he gets up at the Dispatch Box, why does he say not that he is postponing the sale, but that he is cancelling it?

The Prime Minister: I think, once again, that the right hon. Gentleman wrote the questions before he listened to the answers, and I think the bandwagon has just hit a bit of a tree.

Transcript: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/02.htm
Video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9398000/9398223.stm

[ArrowsFA1]

No different to selling off e.g. British Gas, British Airways, British Rail, the electricity companies etc etc.
To some extent yes. The basic Tory philosophy is that the private sector can do things far better, and far more efficiently. That and the fact that selling public assets raises money for the Treasury.

As someone who once worked for British Gas as it went from public to private ownership I was well aware of the mess and chaos that resulted for what was a short term gain. Are we, as consumers and as a nation, really better off as a result of the sell off of those assets, or are those who bought them really the ones who benefit?

[Mark]

As someone who once worked for British Gas as it went from public to private ownership I was well aware of the mess and chaos that resulted for what was a short term gain. Are we, as consumers and as a nation, really better off as a result of the sell off of those assets, or are those who bought them really the ones who benefit?

That's impossible to say at the moment. Certainly the way the state owned utilities were in the 1980's they probably did need a massive shake up, but that's probably all, other countries manage to have state owned utility companies and railways and do it well.

I do take particular issue with the ability of private companies to be more efficient, actually if you come down to it the opposite should be true, as private companies require profits which when you are delivering a public service is a marked inefficiency, when you compare it to the ideal of a company doing the job without the need to make any money from it.

[chuck34]

That's impossible to say at the moment. Certainly the way the state owned utilities were in the 1980's they probably did need a massive shake up, but that's probably all, other countries manage to have state owned utility companies and railways and do it well.

I do take particular issue with the ability of private companies to be more efficient, actually if you come down to it the opposite should be true, as private companies require profits which when you are delivering a public service is a marked inefficiency, when you compare it to the ideal of a company doing the job without the need to make any money from it.

If you have no need to make money from providing a good or service, what is the motivation to innovate? To become more efficient? To drive down costs? To provide a better good/service?

[Mark]

That's the usual viewpoint, yes. But then you have state owned companies such as SNCF which are regarded as the best in the world. It is possible, if you put your mind to it.

[Dave B]

If you have no need to make money from providing a good or service, what is the motivation to innovate? To become more efficient? To drive down costs? To provide a better good/service?

That's a valid point, but if you're a shareholder what's the motivation to invest in long-term productivity at the expense of a short-term profit? We've seen it so many times in the UK with utilities, telecoms and transport: massive profits being shared out while prices for consumers rise and government still provides a subsidy.

Rules mandating minimum levels of profits being re-invested would be one possible solution, but I'm not sure they'd be lawful under competition law.

[Daniel]

I do take particular issue with the ability of private companies to be more efficient, actually if you come down to it the opposite should be true, as private companies require profits which when you are delivering a public service is a marked inefficiency, when you compare it to the ideal of a company doing the job without the need to make any money from it.

As someone who works for their local authority I'd say that public services are stupidly inefficient, but should they be?

[Mark]

They usually are, due to inadequate management and oversight, but they don't have to be..

[BDunnell]

They usually are, due to inadequate management and oversight, but they don't have to be..

Precisely. And the notion that people magically become more efficient, more innovative, etc if they move into the private sector is nonsensical. The truth is that there are an awful lot of deeply incompetent individuals out there in both the public and private sectors, and that's the problem.

[ArrowsFA1]

As someone who works for their local authority I'd say that public services are stupidly inefficient, but should they be?
Absolutely not, and they don't need to be either. No doubt there are lessons that can be learned from the private sector, but that does not mean the private sector should simply be allowed to step in and take over IMHO.

There's a good reason why essential services such as health and policing (to take two examples) are in public hands. Neither sell consumer products to generate profit for investors, but both are there to provide a service which is in everyones interests.

[chuck34]

That's a valid point, but if you're a shareholder what's the motivation to invest in long-term productivity at the expense of a short-term profit? We've seen it so many times in the UK with utilities, telecoms and transport: massive profits being shared out while prices for consumers rise and government still provides a subsidy.

Rules mandating minimum levels of profits being re-invested would be one possible solution, but I'm not sure they'd be lawful under competition law.

Short term profit vs long term viability is always a question. But if allowed the market will take care of that, unless the government steps in a mucks things up ... ie GM and Chrysler.

[Rollo]

http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg610/scaled.php?tn=0&server=610&filename=9xuei.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640

This needs no caption :D

[Dave B]

It's back! Cameron is to "relaunch" the Big Society, apparently it's only unpopular because it hasn't been explained properly.

Patronising git. I understand it perfectly thankyouverymuch, I just happen to think it's a pile of wooly guff designed to distract from the deepest and most savage spending cuts for generations in the hope that us proles won't notice.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/23/david-cameron-big-society-project

[Mark]

Oh just like nationwide road tolls were only unpopular because they weren't explained properly? We understood them perfectly well, thanks.

[ArrowsFA1]

What really gets me about Cameron's BS - other than it's clearly his attempt at creating a "legacy" as PM - is that it rides on the back of work already being done around the country that is done despite government, not because of it.

It's not that the Tories have failed to explain it, it's that people have seen through it for what it is - a fluffy add-on.

[Mark]

Camerons tsar of BS has just quit.

[Rollo]

If you have no need to make money from providing a good or service, what is the motivation to innovate? To become more efficient? To drive down costs? To provide a better good/service?

Would you care to look at the other side of this question. If you are a private firm that must return a profit to shareholders, there is even less reason to innovate because of the probablity of failure. Failure means that an expense has been incurred but with no benefits, and that's a lot harder to explain to corporate boards and shareholders than if you'd been a public institution where the need for profits don't exist.

As for providing a "better good/service", then is no inherent motivation to do this as a private firm. The only motivation is to provide a good or service at a cheaper costs. BP certainly didn't give a rip about providing a better good or even a better method of producing that good when they installed Deepwater Horizon?

If for instance you have a "safety officer" wearing a badge and standing next to a bank, if he is a "policeman" or "rent-a-cop", then there will be no difference in the level of service he provides whether he is a government or private employee assuming that wages, equipment and training are equal. He is still the same person doing the same job.

[BDunnell]

It's back! Cameron is to "relaunch" the Big Society, apparently it's only unpopular because it hasn't been explained properly.

Patronising git. I understand it perfectly thankyouverymuch, I just happen to think it's a pile of wooly guff designed to distract from the deepest and most savage spending cuts for generations in the hope that us proles won't notice.

And, what's more, it's a pile of woolly guff that the Lib Dems would have castigated as window dressing and a gimmick were they in opposition, without a doubt.

[Mark]

Short term profit vs long term viability is always a question. But if allowed the market will take care of that, unless the government steps in a mucks things up ... ie GM and Chrysler.

But quite often there is no market. Most bus companies in the UK act as monopoly suppliers, almost the same with the train companies. They have no reason to provide a better service as they are the only service, they can concentrate on maximising their profits instead.

[Dave B]

Here's a perfect illustration of how this government is getting things spectacularly wrong:



Some secular organisations have been growing increasingly worried that Tory ministers are opening up government to the agendas of faith-based and pro-life groups.

Some of the same groups have already been preparing to capitalise on the government's big society agenda, which would potentially allow them to replace secular groups in terms of providing services.

In Richmond, south-west London, the Catholic Children's Society has taken over the £89,000 contract to provide advice to schoolchildren on matters including contraception and pregnancies. Another Christian-run charity, Care Confidential, is involved in providing crisis pregnancy advice under the auspices of Newham PCT in east London. Care's education arm, Evaluate, was one of the founding members, alongside Life, of the Sex and Relationships Council.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/24/abortion-sexual-health-coalition

Letting the private sector take over this kind of work open it up to all manner of vested interests. There's no way that Catholic groups should be advising on contraception. The rest of that article makes for pretty depressing reading too.

The main problem is the people who don't work for a living and actually have time for this, and the motivation to actually do it, quite often have extreme views at odds with the majority of the population - local government does suffer from the same problem.

Which is why you have traffic calming, one way systems etc imposed on you, because the anti-car nuts are ruling the way for example. You sound like a bender

sam bender chopping thats my name