Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Random Rants _ End of the Big Society
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2011, 05:49 PM
Does http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/03/phil-redmond-big-society-liverpool withdrawal signal the end for the Big Society?
Well yes, and no.
The leader of the council wrote to David Cameron "How can the city council support the big society and its aim to help communities do more for themselves when we will have to cut the lifeline to hundreds of these vital and worthwhile groups?"
Therein lies the problem. The idea, or to be fair, my idea, of the Big Society is that people do stuff for themselves, together, socially, as a society, without the support of the state. Letting go was always going to be the challenge for local government and Liverpool City Council's public abandonment of the Big Society shows only that they didn't understand what they were agreeing to.
So yes, I think the Big Society is dead, but I don't think it was ever a possibility. If it was going to generate funny-money revenue then the Big Society was going to be the latest thing for local government. Indeed, it would take some serious professional help to get the British public engaged in civil society. After more than a generation strapped into the local government matrix we need more than a bit of acupuncture and a rub down from Trinity to get us back on our feet, but why would local government want that? The local government industry is predicated on our feckless, whitless dependence so why would the industry engineer its own decline by empowering us?
Well it wouldn't, would it. Liverpool City Council, and I suggest local government in general, saw the Big Society as a threat and then reinvented it as just another administration gravy train which they'd ride with their third-sector buddies, and when the cash didn't appear Liverpool City Council got the hump.
It's the same story in Newbury. The third-sector organisations were nervous of the Big Society at first because it threatened their state funding, but now they've got with the programme they're bigging up the Big Society's dependence on local government bitty, and local government obliges its familiars with Big Society suckle.
I can't think of a more outrageous example of the Big Fat State than Newbury Town Council's handling of the grass-roots demand for allotment self-management. Allotment self-management is as old as the allotment movement and it's hard to think of anything more Big Society. There are self-managed sites around the country that are run by their tenants without any help from their local authority, and it would be as alien to these sites to depend on the state for support as it would any badminton club, golf club or bridge club. There is little more to running an allotment site than most any other social club, and there is strong support from a national society and active social networking. More than that it is recognised in the movement, and by local and national government, that allotmenteers in charge is good for people, and good for communities. Allotment self-management is the Big Society archetype. So the benefits make allotment self-management a no-brainer without even thinking about the cost to the tax-payer of state-management.
And this is the Big Fat State. Newbury Town Council won't let the service go because it is a £100k turnover industry for them, mostly funded by the tax-payer, so there's no way they'd let the service manage itself and lose all of that lovely money. So they suppress the debate, smear the argument, and marginalise the activists. And to put the cherry on the top, they create a £3.5k slush fund for their "Big Society" chums. You couldn't make it up.
I'd like to think that the Big Society was a genuine idea from the Conservatives, and I guess I am a bit of a tory boy so I believe it was, but if Tory High Command were serious about us re-claiming our dignity and not being Big State milksops then they need to provide a way for us to beat the Big Fat State, and they spectacularly haven't. Perhaps I'll write to Eric Pickles and tell him what's going on.
But on reflection I don't think I can be asked. I wish I'd taken the blue pill.
Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 05:52 PM
This was quite interesting to start with, then you turned into yet another allotment rant.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2011, 05:53 PM
Ah, Mr. Smith.
Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 06:01 PM
But did it detract from the message? I say no and he has a point. It seems the Big Society is permissible, but only on the Big State terms. It seemingly hasn't empowered society to wrestle control from the Big State.
Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 06:06 PM
It's the Big Society, not the Billy-No-Mates Society
Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 06:17 PM
Is that before or after the council showed their teeth?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2011, 06:46 PM
It's the Big Society, not the Billy-No-Mates Society
Isn't that what I said? Other than me there was no call for a Big Society. I suggest that is really rather the point. I believe the Big Society is good for people, but it'll take some getting there, and for that to happen the grass-roots activists need nurturing, and the state needs to let go, and if the tories genuinely want society to get there then they need to fix the problems that will prevent it, and as yet they haven't. But I think I said that.
Anywho, aren't you meant to be out there fixing my allotment hedge for me? And when you're done the ditch needs unblocking too. There's a good chap.
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 4 2011, 07:03 PM
Maybe if a whole load of allotment holders had got together & asked for self management it would have happened.
I was under the impression that the Big Society was about like minded people doing things for themselves.
Not like minded people clubing together to help spend state handouts.
Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 07:23 PM
Maybe, but I thought it was about society providing the labour and maybe the state provides the tools and means, as it were.
Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 07:24 PM
I was under the impression that the Big Society was about like minded people doing things for themselves.
Not like minded people clubing together to help spend state handouts.
Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 07:29 PM
Except that wasn't dannyboys point, but it gives you another opportunity to knock SK, eh?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2011, 07:32 PM
I was under the impression that the Big Society was about like minded people doing things for themselves.
Not like minded people clubing together to help spend state handouts.
Yes, I think if there had been enough people demanding self-management it would have been difficult for the Council to deny it for ever, but no one was bothered enough to demand it in the face of the Council's opposition.
It happens in places that the Council decide to drop their allotment service to save money and the allotmenteers have no option but to take on the management and even then there are only a handful of individuals happy to do the the management, and not infrequently just one or two (though working parties for the maintenance of usually well supported). We have become very used to depending on the state for everything, and it was always going to take some effort to make the Big Society work, but rather than that all I've seen is the local government working to preserve the Big Fat State.
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 4 2011, 07:55 PM
It happens in places that the Council decide to drop their allotment service to save money and the allotmenteers have no option but to take on the management and even then there are only a handful of individuals happy to do the the management, and not infrequently just one or two (though working parties for the maintenance of usually well supported). We have become very used to depending on the state for everything, and it was always going to take some effort to make the Big Society work, but rather than that all I've seen is the local government working to preserve the Big Fat State.
I think you have summed up the problem.
You & maybe one or two others were the only ones wanting self management. The others could not care less - or even prefered to keep NDC in charge. If so, it is right that it stays under NDC control.
Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 08:08 PM
You & maybe one or two others were the only ones wanting self management. The others could not care less - or even prefered to keep NDC in charge. If so, it is right that it stays under NDC control.
Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 08:14 PM
Why? If the Goverment has a wish to off-load costs, then perhaps the council should help promote or push for self management. If this is an option that helps to save (taxpayers) money and maintain quality, I say it is incumbent on the council to help get this going.
Edited for accuracy.
Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 08:17 PM
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2011, 08:38 PM
You & maybe one or two others were the only ones wanting self management. The others could not care less - or even prefered to keep NDC in charge. If so, it is right that it stays under NDC control.
Yes, there were allotmenteers who wanted NTC to retain control. However, it would have been interesting if the Council had asked allotmenteers what they thought. Why do you suppose they haven't asked?
If you remember, at the West Mills tenents meeting the Council implied that self-management was an increadily expensive option by saying that they had found self-managed councl sites charging £100 per pole (over 20 times what we pay in Newbury) and in response to a Freedom of Information request it turned out that the self-managed council site they had in mind was a Wyevale Garden Centre grow your own plot, so not a council site, not self-managed, and not even an allotment. Hardly even handed was it.
I think it would be good to ask the allotmenteers. How about: "would you like to pay the full cost of the Council running the your allotment service, around £225 for an average plot, or would you like to be self-managed and pay an average of £25 per plot".
Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 08:42 PM
This is why I am suspicious of dannyboy and user23's impartiality on this matter.
The government would like to see elements of their control devolved down to the end users. Why are dannyboy and user23 seemingly against it in this case. Even if it is that you are on a power trip. If self management was by election, your power trip would be short lived anyway.
As a tax payer, perhaps I should insist that allotments manage themselves?
Posted by: Cognosco Feb 4 2011, 08:48 PM
If you remember, at the West Mills tenents meeting the Council implied that self-management was an increadily expensive option by saying that they had found self-managed councl sites charging £100 per pole (over 20 times what we pay in Newbury) and in response to a Freedom of Information request it turned out that the self-managed council site they had in mind was a Wyevale Garden Centre grow your own plot, so not a council site, not self-managed, and not even an allotment. Hardly even handed was it.
I think it would be good to ask the allotmenteers. How about: "would you like to pay the full cost of the Council running the your allotment service, around £225 for an average plot, or would you like to be self-managed and pay an average of £25 per plot".
Exactly so no openness or transparency there then? Plus they would not be able to use the allotments for council parking either? Of course that would not enter the equation would it?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2011, 08:58 PM
Ha!
Posted by: Bofem Feb 5 2011, 09:20 AM
Perhaps a more ominous (yet typical) portent for the Big society is WBC's building disposal.
Under the new Localism Bill due to come into force summer 2011, all councils have to offer all public buildings to community groups BEFORE putting them on the market. In practice, this means a 90 minute moratorium on flogging old buildings until we've had chance to put together a business plan and bid for it.
So, the Big Society Tories on WBC are instead doing deals with a well-known local housing association - no doubt for unimaginative flats. Hardly Big Society eh? Similarly, Newbury Town Council is secretly trying to sell the footie pitch opposite Shaw Crescent to the same organisation. Shameful.
I believe various developers are looking at Greenham House (the white house on the burger king roundabout), which is for sale by WBC.
Because these failed institutions are only capable of doing the right thing after exhausting every other possibility, we're not going to get a better deal.
More needs to be done, a la Mubarak?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 5 2011, 11:29 AM
Top post Bofem. I'll happily join you in the market square for an Egyptian reggae.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 5 2011, 11:44 AM
This the pitch?
If the pitch isn't needed for footie then there's nothing stopping them from turning it into an allotment site and doing their statutory duty by providing sufficient allotment to clear the waiting list and give everyone the size of plot they want. Shameful. They did try and sell the south end of Southby's site a few years back too, but despite their best efforts to run the most miserably ineffectual allotment service they could people still kept applying for plots. Still, if Cllr Arthur Johnson revives his idea to hike the rent then plots like mine will be more than £250 and that'll clear the sites.
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 6 2011, 09:38 PM
The government would like to see elements of their control devolved down to the end users. Why are dannyboy and user23 seemingly against it in this case. Even if it is that you are on a power trip. If self management was by election, your power trip would be short lived anyway.
As a tax payer, perhaps I should insist that allotments manage themselves?
Yawn,
I'm not against allotments being self managed. Seems to me in Newbury, the allotment holders were happy as things were. If they wanted self management, why was there no grass roots support for SK?
Posted by: Iommi Feb 6 2011, 09:42 PM
I'm not against allotments being self managed. Seems to me in Newbury, the allotment holders were happy as things were. If they wanted self management, why was there no grass roots support for SK?
Perhaps you're right, but where do you get your data from? You spend a lot more time winding into SK that actually describing why self management is a bad idea...that is why.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 6 2011, 09:50 PM
I'm not against allotments being self managed. Seems to me in Newbury, the allotment holders were happy as things were. If they wanted self management, why was there no grass roots support for SK?
The objective evidence was that 80-90% of allotmenteers wanted self-management. http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?s=&showtopic=1142&view=findpost&p=33569.
The problem was that the Council didn't want self-management so they smeared me, undermined the allotment society, and suppressed the self-management debate. While 80-90% might want self-management, pretty much 0% wanted it enough to fight the Council for it. That isn't to say they were happy with the Council's regime, and the Council are very careful not to invite any comment that would show otherwise.
The question to ask is: Why won't the Council ask us if we want self-management? It would cost nothing to put the question at the bottom of the bill that goes out next week.
"Would you like a meeting to discuss self-management. yes or no."
Posted by: Iommi Feb 6 2011, 09:54 PM
Exactly, and dannyboy and user23 shy from that idea.
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 6 2011, 10:11 PM
data - SK himself. Not one singole follow allotment holder was prepared to stand with him against the council.
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 6 2011, 10:14 PM
I don't shy from it at all.
It would not be a fight if enough allotment holders asked for it. Why don't they? Why didn't they all get together after the proposed 'community hut' fell through & demand action? Why are they not supporting SK?
It is the silent majority.
Posted by: Iommi Feb 6 2011, 10:16 PM
It would not be a fight if enough allotment holders asked for it. Why don't they? Why didn't they all get together after the proposed 'community hut' fell through & demand action? Why are they not supporting SK?
It is the silent majority.
And you know this is the case? Anyway, why don't your 'mates' insist on self management?
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 6 2011, 10:19 PM
err, Sk himself said he had no support.
I have no mates. Why do you think I am on forums when normal people would be socialising?
Posted by: Iommi Feb 6 2011, 10:23 PM
1 So he's the font of all knowledge (notwithstanding a society seems popular, but a fight with the council is less so)?
2 At 22:21?
Basically, you are a fraud.
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 6 2011, 11:49 PM
2 At 22:21?
Basically, you are a fraud.
Well, you have swallowed everything he has said.
Posted by: Bofem Feb 7 2011, 09:07 AM
Let's cut the bickering and get back on track.
If local governmeent isn't responding, then we could arrange a referendum on whether Hutton Close should be used for allotments, (or better still whether NTC should be abolished due to chronic maladministration.)
Either way, there's land, funding (Greenham Trust etc), and people, and certainly demand (100 on the waiting list for allotments in Newbury).
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 7 2011, 10:21 AM
My point was never that there was a huge popular demand for the Big Society, but a lack of demand doesn't necessarily mean an active opposition, it could just be apathy. It's a falisy to suggest that a slient majority are actively voting against whatever it is, silent majorities are, well, they're silent. They don't care.
How many residents of the Nightingales are actively campaigning for an end to the anti-social behaviour on their estate? How many take to the streets in protest at their local authority's suppression of their grass-roots programmes of social inclusion and regeneration? It's none isn't it. Do you suppose that means that the silent majority want to live as they do, or does it mean that they are unempowered and believe the problem is for someone else to solve?
This is the essence of the Big Society failure. People don't believe in society, they don't believe that it's really any of their business, and while they might like it to be better, they're not going to put themselves out to do anything about it. This was the problem that the Big Society had to address, but the Big Fat State's business model depends on our passivity and compliance, and so local government actively suppresses the Big Society.
Self-management would have worked in Newbury, because it works all over the country and people are people. By and large self-management works well and it creates happier sites and happier people, but who wants to put themselves out to fight a council that doesn't want it to happen? People don't have allotments for a fight, they have an allotment for to grow some veggies and not be messed around.
But why does Newbury Town Council suppress the debate? It's not out of support for some democratic decision by the allotmenteers because what consultation there has been suggest that 85% want self management, and in any case Newbury Town Council never consults its allotmenteers about anything. Neither is it out of a genuine belief that self-management is wrong for the people of Newbury, because informed research shows the opposite to be true, and even the Local Government Association recommends self-management. So the Council suppress slef-management to serve some ends of their own, and as the only ends they have are money and power my first guess would be to look there. And surprise surprise, the Town Council does indeed spend maybe £75k of tax-payer's money on their allotment service, and self-management would see and end to than and a shrinking of the Town Council by 15%, and that doesn't leave much for our councillors to be incharge of.
This is what killed the Big Society, the Big Fat State.
Posted by: Iommi Feb 7 2011, 11:13 AM
I am open to his claims to be refuted, but that hasn't been forth coming, so until then, it is a matter of faith. From what basis are you entitled to believe how you see the situation? What facts are you in possession of that refutes SK's claims?
I maintain: I insist that our council should look into reducing costs where they can do so, provided the quality of the service can be preserved. I see self management being a plausible option. Why are you against it in this instance?
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 7 2011, 12:43 PM
What am I against -
the holding of an allotment ( which is an over subscribed luxury ) and then attempting to bite the hand that feeds whilst at the same time claiming you are trying to force change for the better of everyone. Even though tyour fellow alloment holders want no part of any change. ( then claim that this is due to apathy ).
My motto - don't attempt to fix what isn't broken.
Posted by: Iommi Feb 7 2011, 12:53 PM
Why do you think that self management wouldn't be better for everyone (the allotmenteers and the tax payer).
One minute you believe his view of events, the next you are sceptical of them. Is it because you only believe and disbelieve those points which supports your argument?
One minute you are critical of allotments (over subscribed luxury), the next minute you think it is right to protect the status quo.
The allegation is that it is broke! It is also proposed that we reduce the cost of having allotments by making them self managed. What the freak is wrong with that? Like I said, as a taxpayer, I think it is only right that the council seeks to reduce costs, not be forced to.
In my view, your reply cements my view that your main gripe is personal and not one based on the technical merits.
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 7 2011, 01:00 PM
One minute you believe his view of events, the next you are sceptical of them. Is it because you only believe and disbelieve those points which supports your argument?
One minute you are critical of allotments (over subscribed luxury), the next minute you think it is right to protect the status quo.
The allegation is that it is broke! It is also proposed that we reduce the cost of having allotments by making them self managed. What the freak is wrong with that? Like I said, as a taxpayer, I think it is on right that the council seeks to reduce costs, not be forced to.
In my view, your reply cements my view that your main gripe is personal and not one based on the technical merits.
Calling an allotment an over subscribed luxury is not being critical of the idea. It is a statement of fact.
if Sk had managed to get even one fellow allotment holder to join his fight for self management I'd be more inclined to accept his arguments for SM. You can't assume that the lack of interest was solely due to apathy.
Therefore they must remain a tax payer funded luxury.
Posted by: Iommi Feb 7 2011, 01:09 PM
And the practical difference is?
Why? Why should the council not look to 'off load' the management to save tax payers money? SK's argument for self management is not undermined by the apparent deference of the allotmenteers to confront the council.
In my view, your argument is intellectually incoherent.
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 7 2011, 01:12 PM
Why? Why should the council not look to 'off load' the management to save tax payers money? SK's argument for self management is not undermined by the apparent deference of the allotmenteers to confront the council.
In my view, your argument is intellectually incoherent.
Oh well in that case we can both shut up.
Posted by: Iommi Feb 7 2011, 01:13 PM
Why?
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 7 2011, 01:18 PM
what is the point of prolonging a debate half of which is 'intellectuallty incoherent'
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 7 2011, 01:35 PM
if Sk had managed to get even one fellow allotment holder to join his fight for self management I'd be more inclined to accept his arguments for SM. You can't assume that the lack of interest was solely due to apathy.
Therefore they must remain a tax payer funded luxury.
Do you support the suggestion that the Council should ballot the allotmenteers on self-management, adding this to the bottom of the bill?
Would you like a meeting to discuss self-management Yes or No?
Posted by: Iommi Feb 7 2011, 02:08 PM
I'm not sure my contribution is though.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 7 2011, 05:13 PM
I can see this is getting a little hung up on the self-management thing. I want to post a question I asked at the Community Services Committee almost three years ago. There's no possible criticism of power-grabs and dictatorships, all I was asking for was for the allotmenteers to be consulted and involved. Why do you suppose this was dismissed out of hand? Why do we allow the Big Fat State to suppress the Big Society?
Current maintenance arrangements are costing something like three times the allotment Income, and while you're not passing this cost on to tenants now you have already resolved to increase rents to break-even, and I have no desire to see the rent tripling. I have attached a spread-sheet of the schedule of payments to show how I reckon this cost.
An analysis of the maintenance arrangements could usefully present the option of tenants becoming more directly involved in their site maintenance. As an example, I cleared 400 yards of ditch around the Wash Common allotments this year. The contractor is still unable to gain access to most of the ditch because the field is wet and had I not done the work it would still not have been cleared. The contractor has been paid £2,373 for this work, and to gain access to the internal ditch the remnants of a one hundred and fifty year old enclosure hedge have been removed. Having only recently become aware of the cultural and historic significance of this hedge I would very much like to have it reinstated with an adjacent site orchard. However, this has been declined because the option of tenants clearing the ditch by hand is dismissed and the contractor will need machine access. Hand-clearing the ditch is sustainable, demonstrably practical and free, and the hedge and orchard increase biodiversity and preserve cultural heritage, so I would ask that you consider this maintenance option in line with your adopted LA21 principles, and to reduce maintenance costs.
You are already committed to Best Value and Local Agenda 21 principles and the cornerstone of both is that you consult service users on these issues. I would ask that you consult the tenants on the service plan to understand what is and isn't important to the allotment service users.”
Posted by: planter Feb 7 2011, 05:27 PM
As an allotment holder I am more than happy with the council running the allotments. If self management involves all this bickering I really don't want to know. Our allotments are managed well. Thank you NDC. Perhaps some of SK's amazing energy would be better spent trying to help those that really need help in this world, eg the homeless & starving. What a luxury an allotment would be to them.
Posted by: Iommi Feb 7 2011, 05:45 PM
What allotment do you tend to? How much do you pay for your plot?
An allotment would be a luxury for those you list, however; it seems the NDC are seeking to make the cost of owning one (unnecessarily) ever more expensive.
All that being said, and taking into account of your altruistic concerns, don't you think you should think about removing the cost of running your allotment from the tax payer?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 7 2011, 06:21 PM
Any reason you need to post anonymously planter? Which site are you on?
If you don't want to be involved self-management doesn't affect you. You pay less rent of course, and your site gets a toilet, and your hedge gets mended, but other than that it's business as usual.
In fairness to the tax-payer are you happy to pay the full cost of your hobby, and if you are is it fair to insist that everyone else does, even if they're eagre to do the maintenance and administration and keep their costs down like that?
Posted by: Iommi Feb 8 2011, 01:02 PM
It looks like you might get somewhere after all SK? 
"Council leader, Graham Jones, has asked that the district council be considered for the Big Society pilot scheme"
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=15856
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 8 2011, 01:26 PM
"Council leader, Graham Jones, has asked that the district council be considered for the Big Society pilot scheme"
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=15856
Hmm, interesting. It certainly puts Commissar Userboy in an awkward position.
I don't want to be over-cynical, but I'm not filled with hope, not when Graham Jones cites Parish Planning as a Big Society initiative, and not when the West Berkshire Conservatives actively oppose allotment self-management. There's still this idea that decentralisation means moving responsibility out from central government to local government, but it shouldn't stop there, it needs devolving all the way down to people in their communities. Still, it'll be difficult to discuss Big Society in West Berkshire without the Town Council's activities coming under scrutiny so I welcome that, and it could even turn out well.
Posted by: user23 Feb 8 2011, 07:26 PM
I don't want to be over-cynical, but I'm not filled with hope, not when Graham Jones cites Parish Planning as a Big Society initiative, and not when the West Berkshire Conservatives actively oppose allotment self-management. There's still this idea that decentralisation means moving responsibility out from central government to local government, but it shouldn't stop there, it needs devolving all the way down to people in their communities. Still, it'll be difficult to discuss Big Society in West Berkshire without the Town Council's activities coming under scrutiny so I welcome that, and it could even turn out well.
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 8 2011, 07:43 PM
I don't want to be over-cynical, but I'm not filled with hope, not when Graham Jones cites Parish Planning as a Big Society initiative, and not when the West Berkshire Conservatives actively oppose allotment self-management.
Not my bag exactly, but I haven't noticed a policy statement on the matter. Especially as it is only a matter for Parish Councils, many of whom are not party-based.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 8 2011, 10:38 PM
You're right, sorry, I was forgetting that the NTC tories don't represent the whole of the local party.
Posted by: Bofem Feb 9 2011, 03:33 PM
It's much wider than that though isn't it. Graham Jones cites the Greater Greenham Project as a great example of the Big Society already happening.
I don't know anything about this, so I looked into it (http://www.westberkshirepartnership.org/index.aspx?articleid=19031) to find a familiarly depressing picture.
Far from bringing together real people to organise and improve their lives and local areas, it's chaired by a councillor, and crowded with officials from everywhere BUT Greenham.
So what, I hear you cry....at least someone's doing something! Well, no. They came up with a 9 point action plan (of course!), and have failed to deliver 7 of them. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the Big Society then....just more Big Fat State.
But life's too short for moaning. WBC clearly have no intention of handing over the levers of power without a struggle.
There's lots we can do to improve our area, but the starting point is how do we get the control off the authorities in the first place. That means participatory budgeting, direct democracy, and more information on local services (costs/staff etc).
So the title of this thread should be "Start of the Big Society".
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 9 2011, 03:41 PM
I feel Godwin's Law about to be proved.....
Posted by: Jayjay Feb 9 2011, 04:27 PM
Godwins Law"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches. In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope— someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 9 2011, 04:45 PM
DO NOT mention the War. I did, once, but I think I got away with it.
Surely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutber's_law is far more the truth for most political advances?
Posted by: Thirtover Feb 10 2011, 01:51 PM
The Greater Greenham Project involves many residents see link below. Successes inlcude the youth clubs with over 100 attendances a week, investment being planned in the community centre driven by GCT, Jobcentre Plus adviser in the community every month, around 25% of the members of steering group are now residents (without other hats on), new resident events committee putting on a programme of activities and events for the community.
Residents are raising the issues and priorities and by working with agencies are delivering solutions.
Many of the stretching targets are still to be achieved but lets not put down the successes achieved so far.
Maybe look at Facebook Greenham - Berkshire for what is happenign and what residents think.
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=14554
Posted by: Bofem Feb 10 2011, 02:56 PM
Thanks for that....nice response.
It's heartening to see so many young people in Greenham volunteering etc, but it's not resident-led is it? It's chaired by a councillor, the purpose of the project is to achieve what the state wants (ie reduce unemployment) not what locals want.
You've highlighted that there's a lot of public money invested in this, but not the poor local accountability...which in effect is the opposite of the Big Society.
If the people who live there only make up a tokenistic 25% of the steering group, they should be given control of the project.
For example, some years ago (under the Lib Dems), WBC was asked to devolve 10% of Greenham's council tax budget to community groups. They refused.
What about the multi-games area in the school for teenagers? Installed by popular demand, then locked up every night by the school caretaker. You couldn't make it up.
As an aside, I'm curious to find out why the increasing drug problems of Pigeons Farm are not part of the project. Where are the Crack House Closure Orders?
Or what about the housing subsidence near Water Lane? You see, there are useful services the Big Fat State can provide if these people weren't so busy telling the good people of Greenham what they need.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 14 2011, 09:25 AM
So Cameron is speaking this morning on the Big Society, hopefully he tells us exactly what it means.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 14 2011, 10:19 AM
So, can anyone enlighten me further RE: The Big Society, because that speach didn't tell me anything. I'm all for engaging the voluntary sector, but nothing Cameron is saying is convincing me that the Big Society is anything meaningful.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 14 2011, 10:46 AM
Scrap the Big Society. Lets have full employment by spending £20 Trillion. That seems like a good idea. Oh and everyone should get a minimum 5% above inflation pay rise every year.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 14 2011, 11:00 AM
But what is the Big Society? I'm all for encouraging the voluntary sector, but what will the Big Society be and how will it help? From what Cameron was saying today, the Big Society is an idea of people getting involved, but from what everyone was saying, I was expecting the "Big Society" to actually be something more, especially when so much focus is being put on it.
Posted by: Iommi Feb 14 2011, 11:37 AM
It means voluntary labour. Involve people in services that don't require people to be paid in money. It is something we have already, but Cameron wishes more, thus reduce the cost of public services. It is meant to help gel people of like minded attitudes.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 14 2011, 11:45 AM
I'm all for some of that. But when the council are axing day centes, youth services and grants to charities and community organisations, surely that is going to cause a huge problem for his vision? Why didn't we look at moving the workload onto the voluntary sector before swinging the axe? Surely it is harder to achieve what his vision is without the support of the state?
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 14 2011, 11:47 AM
"It's too vague... people don't understand what it means" Tessa Jowell.
Posted by: Iommi Feb 14 2011, 11:55 AM
Yes, but as they say: necessity is the mother of invention. Cut the day centres, etc, and people have to get moving quickly. Otherwise, it never happens.
Posted by: Bofem Feb 14 2011, 01:11 PM
Er...because Labour got kicked out leaving us with £120m a day interest payments.
The 'Big' conundrum is that if we were really set free, taxation would massively reduce as the state role shrinks. With Labour's debts to repay over the next 20 years, we're only getting half the idea.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 14 2011, 01:24 PM
It boils down to a Private V Public Sector viewpoint.
The Private Sector has accepted the cuts and is getting on with it.
The Public Sector think it's there god given right to have higher than inflation pay rises every year and Pensions that Private Sector workers could only dream of.
Whilst I have every respect for Public Sector workers they are still having their chain yanked by out of date Militant left wing unionists.
We as a Country are massively in debt and if we followed Garvies ideas our children and childrens children would be very pi$$ed off with us. Its time to act like Adults and rationalise how we are going to resolve the defecit problem. Brown and Blair did not save for a rainy day and went it rained we all got drowned...
Posted by: Iommi Feb 14 2011, 01:26 PM
I fear that people will be 'less welcoming' of the cuts as the year(s) wear on.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 14 2011, 01:33 PM
I agree. But they are necessary in many cases. As I said before it's alright for RG to moan but its his party that he represents that failed to fix the roof when the sun was shining. Unfortuantely its now raining. Hard.
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 14 2011, 01:34 PM
Nah, RG is old Labour. They have not been seen since the late 70s.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 14 2011, 01:44 PM
I think it'll look a bit like that Iommi, but I believe the Big Society is fundamentally much more.
There's an assumption that it's a zero-sum game - Big Society == Small State, and to the extent that's true the Small State side of the equation does mean that the state will do less - it'll do less directly, and it'll fund less indirectly. This is the side of the equation that's got people worked up because there are currently a lot of snouts in that trough.
The political left don't like it because ideologically they believe in a Big State with central control. The small state is both a Tory and Liberal ideology so it should find favour there but in practice there is very little ideology in politics any more and pragmatist politicians aren't bothered about much other than getting on, and having entered politics for the power they just don't get the point of giving it away tp an empowered society. Local government is happy to accept devolved responsibility if it means more money and power for them, and they're busy brand-engineering the Big Society to mean just that, but of course that's just more Big Fat State. And lastly the out-sourced industry that is the social third-sector is not happy because although their business models use volunteers and they work in local communities they're run largely with state funny money. So those with an interest to protect attack the Small State implication of the Big Society.
And what no one is paying any attention to is the Big Society side of the equation. This is about empowering communities and individuals to build a society. We're social creatures, and yet we do next to nothing for ourselves or with our neighbours. We don't even need to leave our houses to go shopping any more. In a Big Society we'd shovel the snow off our pavements ourselves. We'd pick the litter up from our parks - and we wouldn't drop it in the first place because they'd be our parks. We'd set up local recycling schemes. We'd run school transport. We'd open community shops and post offices. We'd have village fetes. We'd run day centres. We'd commission community art. We'd celebrate our local distinctiveness. We'd run sports facilities. Some of these things we'd volunteer for, some of these things would turn a profit, some of these would be inclusive and accountable to the community, and some would simply be commercial operations.
Very few of us are used to taking any of this responsibility for ourselves so the challenge of the Big Society is to hold our hand while we learn again - and the biggest challenge is for the Big Fat State to let go. And this is why the Big Society has failed before it ever started - the Big Fat State was never going to let it happen.
Posted by: Bofem Feb 14 2011, 02:58 PM
Really? http://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 14 2011, 03:08 PM
err, what is stopping any of this We'd pick the litter up from our parks - and we wouldn't drop it in the first place because they'd be our parks. We'd set up local recycling schemes. We'd run school transport. We'd open community shops and post offices. We'd have village fetes. We'd run day centres. We'd commission community art. We'd celebrate our local distinctiveness. We'd run sports facilities happening right now without some Tory telling us about it?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 14 2011, 03:09 PM
Can I answer with a question: what do you do in your community?
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 14 2011, 03:14 PM
Nothing. But then I don't want to.
Posted by: Iommi Feb 14 2011, 03:28 PM
It does happen now, but the Tories want more of it.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 14 2011, 03:30 PM
That's the answer then. There's nothing unusual in your not getting involved, and this is the challenge - getting people to want to be involved in their community. It's not so difficult because we are naturally social, but for reasons I don't understand we've allowed the state to take care of our every need and it turns out that really isn't very good for society, but kick-starting civil society will take some effort - and that's what the Big Society was meant to be about.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 14 2011, 03:34 PM
It does happen, and in some small isolated communities it can be quite alive and well, but in the main there's not much going on, and the state can be actively obstructive.
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 14 2011, 03:38 PM
It is going to take one **** of a boot. I don't even know the names of my next door neighbours.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 14 2011, 04:10 PM
Who does these days? In the Country where I used to live you DID know everyone around. In the Town its a much more insular existence.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 14 2011, 07:07 PM
Richard, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12443396.
I understood well what David Cameron was saying. However, I think he needs to do more to break the hold of the Big Fat State at the local level, and if he can't do that in tory areas like Newbury then I have no faith in politics.
I also think what Ed Milliband is doing is cynical. The Big Society is not the same issue as cuts in local government, and coupling the two for political ends is grubby. If there's an argument to be made about the implementation of the cuts it's that local government are deliberately doing it badly to increase the pain - and for the record it looks to me like WBC have made a good fist of it.
Posted by: user23 Feb 14 2011, 08:25 PM
Seems to me we already have a solution for some of the closures.
Those demonstrating against the cuts should take over the running of the Day Centres if they feel that passionately about it.
That's the Big Society in action.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 14 2011, 08:34 PM
Those demonstrating against the cuts should take over the running of the Day Centres if they feel that passionately about it. That's the Big Society in action.
Well said. They would need some capacity-building, and a bit of start-up capital, but yes, if these places were well used then there are enough people out there with an interest to run them without state support.
Posted by: user23 Feb 14 2011, 09:17 PM
Perhaps those interested should ask the Council to fund the centre they're interested in taking over for a further three months, giving the money to those are to run it in the future provided they have a proper business plan to ensure the centre's continued operation.
I have no idea whether this would work though, as I've no experience of running anything like this myself. It's just an idea.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 14 2011, 09:39 PM
People haveoffered to take over some of the centres, but the Ormonde Centre lease is up and the college want it back and the temporary building which is Hill Croft House apparently has little life left. One possible option involved using Thatcham FC as a facility, but apparently that building like most others in West Berks is not suitable. User, get a list of possible venues and a rough idea of what financial support is available and numerous parties will get together to do the rest. Do you honestly think people have already tried to explore that option?
Posted by: user23 Feb 14 2011, 10:10 PM
Aren't there other day centres closing. Why aren't these being taken over by the people who demand that they stay open?
Don't be so defeatist. Surely you can't be saying it's the council and the council alone that can run these centres?
If there's a real need for them, people should step in and take them over or start their own.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 14 2011, 10:24 PM
I'm sorry Richard, but I do agree with User here. The centres are going concerns. The service users have welfare cheques to spend on their services and consumer loyalty to their existing providers. If I was an existing service manager I'd be talking to Greenham Common Trust about putting up some money for me to develop a business plan, talking to Empowerment West Berkshire to get hooked up with some business management training, and talking to the Volunteer Centre about getting some willing helpers, then rather than waving a placard outside the Council offices I'd be inside schmoozing in the cocktail lounge lobbying my councillors for a wedge of start-up capital.
Out of interest, how much cash do the old folk get to spend on their day-care needs?
Posted by: user23 Feb 14 2011, 10:38 PM
Out of interest, how much cash do the old folk get to spend on their day-care needs?
If there's the supposed demand for these services then there should be no problem in them being run by those demonstrating that they stay open.
Posted by: Iommi Feb 14 2011, 10:42 PM
If things go as predicted in this country for the next few years, then I'd imagine many people will be more focused on keeping their jobs than anything else.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 15 2011, 08:30 AM
As I said in my last post, people have offered to keep these services going. The Ormonde Centre building is leased from the college and the lease is up. The college always intended to take the building back, so there is now way that building can be kept on.
Hill Croft House is a temporary building and apparently is coming to the end of it's life cycle. That building apparently can't be kept on either.
I'm not being defeatest. I've spent months working with charities and user groups of many of the day centres to advise on setting up their own services or the like. The council have said the centres cannot be kept open. So if anyone is being defeatest, it is the council who have refused to work with the user groups to take on these "going concerns".
One person got very far with plans to set up a facility at Thatcham FC, but that plan would appear to have come to nothing because of the building suitability etc. Once again, many people have looked at providing these services, but if the council won't provide buildings or any funding and there are little or no suitable building elsewhere, how can people do it?
I'm more than happy to facilitate a public meeting, but if the council will not help with providing alternative facilities, what can anyone else do? User23 or Simon, do you know any buildings that would be suitable for a facility for severly disable people, a building that is secure to be used as a replacement for Hill Croft House or a building that has rubber floors and is adapted for disabled users to practice theatre work / physical activities?
I am being genuine here, if you know of buildings please advise and I will pass the info on. The groups are now despairing as they fear they will have nowhere to go. Some people will simply never leave the house. I am more than happy to donate time to this, but when the council refuse to help and there appears to be no suitable buildings, what more can be done?
Posted by: user23 Feb 15 2011, 07:31 PM
Hang on, some of these facilities were going to close anyway? There's a group supposedly passionate about keeping them open and they can't find any suitable buildings for the centres to move to? Sounds like some of these closures were going to happen, cuts or not then.
Surely this doesn't cover all the centres closing too, what about the ones that are in a building that could still be used?
If folk would rather protest about cuts than do something constructive as it seems in this case the Big Society is doomed from the outset.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 15 2011, 08:07 PM
I don't believe it's doomed because I still believe in people, but for more than a generation we have been losing our personal responsibility and becoming dependent, and that was always going to take some turning around. One painful way for us all to rediscover our social responsibility is for the state just to stop supporting us, sink or swim if you like, but a more gentle way to go is for the state to hold our hand through initiatives such as Empowerment West Berkshire, but it was always going to be painful. It's tough love.
I understand why RG is supporting the protest, and I respect his genuine concern for the service users affected. I'm concerned for the individuals and their families too, I just don't agree that it's better for the state to provide for them, and agree that it is better for society that we start to provide for ourselves again.
Posted by: Iommi Feb 15 2011, 08:15 PM
They are protesting about the principle of the service cuts. That is a valid thing to do in my view. More noble than sitting at home arguing on the Internet, that's for sure.
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 15 2011, 08:19 PM
I think they are just protesting in principle as that is what you do when not in power & are the oposition.
Posted by: Iommi Feb 15 2011, 08:23 PM
Agreed.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 15 2011, 09:17 PM
User, the fact is people would take on the Ormonde Centre / Hill Croft is a heart beat. Yes, you are right. These two centres would have closed anyway, so trying to say they are closing them for financial reasons is not quite true. Instead of seeing the problem a few years ago, they only realised it when it was too late, and instead of trying to find alternative locations, they decided to axe them.
Who gave did the original deal for the Ormonde Centre building? The college got to build on the new site, yet we end up with no international swimming pool or a day centre after an initial few years. Way to go to whoever did that deal!!!
Posted by: Iommi Feb 15 2011, 09:59 PM
More planning swindles?
Posted by: user23 Feb 15 2011, 10:04 PM
Who gave did the original deal for the Ormonde Centre building? The college got to build on the new site, yet we end up with no international swimming pool or a day centre after an initial few years. Way to go to whoever did that deal!!!
It sounds like you're making excuses, to me.
Posted by: Bofem Feb 15 2011, 10:55 PM
As an aside, has anyone noticed that the college is building a large detached building for 14-19yos at the back of the campus (you can see it from the A339), yet the Ormonde Centre is going to be empty. Why can't they use the same building and save ££££s of my money.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 16 2011, 08:32 AM
The Ormonde Centre building was only ever going to house the day centre until this year as the college need that building to expand. Rather than plan effectively for the day when the college would want the building back, people buried their heads in the sand and now it's too late, they have to close.
User23, I'm not making excuses. The answer to all of your questions RE: buildings and taking them over can be found on the disposal list!!! Not only are they handing back buildings and selling of the other three, they are ripping out specialist equipment from the Phoenix Centre to try and make that a more generic facility, so even the users of that facility are losing out because of poor planning by the council.
I made an offer to take on the youth facility at John O'Gaunt so that it could be run by a group of people from the community, and I've been told it's not possible. For whatever reason, the Kintbury facility isn't able to be taken on by the village either. The more you dig, the more you find user. This is simply a way of slashing costs without a proper consultation, hitting the most vulnerable in society.
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 16 2011, 10:23 AM
, they decided to axe them.
So which is it then?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 16 2011, 10:55 AM
Who did the original deal for the Ormonde Centre building? The college got to build on the new site, yet we end up with no international swimming pool or a day centre after an initial few years. Way to go to whoever did that deal!!!
Always use the full quote!!! When I say axe them, I mean the services not the specific building. They could of provided new buildings.
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 16 2011, 11:02 AM
Full quote!?!
Posted by: user23 Feb 16 2011, 05:37 PM
If you post a link to your business plan and risk register up here and we can all see if we can help you out. Hopefully you'll be waving a watertight project plan for keeping these centres going rather than a banner making public sector workers look bad on the day of your protest.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 16 2011, 08:25 PM
If you post a link to your business plan and risk register up here and we can all see if we can help you out. Hopefully you'll be waving a watertight project plan for keeping these centres going rather than a banner making public sector workers look bad on the day of your protest.
I think you will find that we are standing shoulder to shoulder with 150 care workers and youth workers. It makes me sick that over 80% of the cuts are aimed at the vulnerable here in West Berkshire.
Posted by: user23 Feb 16 2011, 09:05 PM
Please tell me you have one or something similar and you haven't spent more time whining about the cuts of centres that were going to close anyway than doing something constructive.
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 16 2011, 10:11 PM
I doubt many want anyone in any role to lose their job, but against that no-one can be guaranteed a job for life from their chosen employer.
We have become used to 'public services' providing all many of support that in other cultures the family provide, or people do for themselves, or is generally not as vital as we make out. Indeed, I know some cultures that are horrified at the way we treat our elderly relatives - especially (as with private care homes) when someone is making profit from the provision of social care they see as freely given by the extended family.
I do wonder, though, about the way the councils across the country and regardless of 'party' cut service provision and not admin. The 'allowances' some councillors are now being shown to be claiming just are not right. And they are about to vote themselves more, I understand.
"You're all in this together, citizens".
"Pass the port"
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 19 2011, 11:57 AM
I've just seen this on BBC News.
Is this what 'Big Society' means?
"Those values are what brought me into this party - equality, fairness and social justice.
"But also something more - a sense of what defines a good society.
"A belief that when we look after each other, we care for each other, we help each other, we are all stronger as a result."
Posted by: blackdog Feb 19 2011, 12:38 PM
Does this mean that the revamped Phoenix Centre will be able to cater for the activities formerly done at the Ormonde Centre?
Posted by: user23 Feb 19 2011, 02:23 PM
Is this what 'Big Society' means?
"Those values are what brought me into this party - equality, fairness and social justice.
"But also something more - a sense of what defines a good society.
"A belief that when we look after each other, we care for each other, we help each other, we are all stronger as a result."
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 19 2011, 02:34 PM
Too many words with more than two syllables
Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 19 2011, 06:01 PM
Not entirely, but I think the council are hoping that some users will be able to use it.
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 19 2011, 06:12 PM
Is this what 'Big Society' means?
"Those values are what brought me into this party - equality, fairness and social justice.
"But also something more - a sense of what defines a good society.
"A belief that when we look after each other, we care for each other, we help each other, we are all stronger as a result."
Richard, do you think this comment states the ethos of The Big Society?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 19 2011, 08:40 PM
We have become used to 'public services' providing all many of support that in other cultures the family provide, or people do for themselves, or is generally not as vital as we make out. Indeed, I know some cultures that are horrified at the way we treat our elderly relatives - especially (as with private care homes) when someone is making profit from the provision of social care they see as freely given by the extended family.
I do wonder, though, about the way the councils across the country and regardless of 'party' cut service provision and not admin. The 'allowances' some councillors are now being shown to be claiming just are not right. And they are about to vote themselves more, I understand.
"You're all in this together, citizens".
"Pass the port"
Well put.
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 20 2011, 01:16 PM
Is this what 'Big Society' means?
"Those values are what brought me into this party - equality, fairness and social justice.
"But also something more - a sense of what defines a good society.
"A belief that when we look after each other, we care for each other, we help each other, we are all stronger as a result."
Given the debate about what Big Society is, let alone whether it is a good idea or deliverable, I am saddened no-one can answer my question.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 20 2011, 01:43 PM
Sorry, I didn't see what question you were asking. But no, I don't think that's a particularly good definition of Big Society. Big Society for me means society; that's where we support ourselves without being stifled by the state.
There's no mystery about society - we're social creatures, it's what we do. The problem is that the state has made an industry out of our indolence and now we want our society back the state won't let go.
So who defined the Big Society like that?
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 20 2011, 02:59 PM
Thanks.
Isn't your thinking contained within
"A belief that when we look after each other, we care for each other, we help each other, we are all stronger as a result."?
That seems to imply people do things with and for each other, through their own effort, not through a State mechanism.
Rural life is often what I see as a micro society. The method seems to get lost the larger the community. No preaching there, as I barely know the faces, let alone names, of the people beyond one door from my house and that after over 15 years residence!
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 20 2011, 03:41 PM
"A belief that when we look after each other, we care for each other, we help each other, we are all stronger as a result."?
That seems to imply people do things with and for each other, through their own effort, not through a State mechanism.
Yes, enlightened self-interest is half of it - the society bit (though I didn't think the definition of that was very tight), but the big society requires a small state and the definition was completely silent on that question, and that suggests to me it was a quote from someone who was trying to co-opt the Big Society and preserve their Big Fat State.
Go on, who said it?
So true. There is some theoretical basis for that too. A couple of million years ago when we were all scratching our @rses on the African savanah we lived in troups at most a couple of hundred strong and we're fundamentally hard-wired to relate to this number of other people, and any more scrambles our ape-brains.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 20 2011, 11:13 PM
Go on, who said it?
I found it. Here's some more:
Ed Milliband, trying to co-opt the Big Society to preserve his Big Fat State. Now there's a surprise.
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 21 2011, 06:52 AM
Spoil Sport!!!
Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 21 2011, 11:22 AM
Ed Milliband, trying to co-opt the Big Society to preserve his Big Fat State. Now there's a surprise.
Why Ed Miliband is even talking about "The big society" I don't know. What Cameron is talking about from what I've read here is every day community work, volunteering and such like. This has happened for years, so is hardly DC's masterplan for a great new country. Anything that encourages growth in the number of people taking part is a great thing, but by cutting support as fast as he is, DC isn't exactly doing his "vision" any favours.
Posted by: Jayjay Feb 21 2011, 11:27 AM
According to the media DC will announce today that all public services, with the exception of Police, armed forces and judiciary, will be run by the private sector. "It's a vital part of our mission to dismantle Big Government and build the Big Society in its place" "Our plans to devolve power from Whitehall and modernise public services are significant aspects of our Big Society agenda...". I notice there is no mention of the NHS in the exceptions, so have to presume it will be sold off with the rest.
Posted by: Cognosco Feb 21 2011, 06:32 PM
He is already planning to sell off the NHS through the back door. GP's are unable to run the NHS so they will have to call in outside help.
The Americans are hovering like vultures waiting to snap up every morsel of the NHS and try to make a profit.
Just make sure you don't get ill in a few years time if you don't have considerable savings or a decent insurance policy.
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 21 2011, 08:51 PM
The Americans are hovering like vultures waiting to snap up every morsel of the NHS and try to make a profit.
Just make sure you don't get ill in a few years time if you don't have considerable savings or a decent insurance policy.
If the service provided to the user is good, does it matter who provides it?
Posted by: user23 Feb 21 2011, 09:01 PM
Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 21 2011, 09:04 PM
Or policed properly.
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 21 2011, 10:10 PM
What is the guarantee and policing now?
Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 21 2011, 10:13 PM
What do you mean?
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 21 2011, 10:47 PM
See post 128
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 21 2011, 08:51 PM)
If the service provided to the user is good, does it matter who provides it?
You can't guarantee that the service will be good.
and your own comment at 129:
Or policed properly.
Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 21 2011, 10:52 PM
I'm still none the wiser what are you getting at. What is your point?
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 21 2011, 10:56 PM
Hmmm
Listen very carefully, I will say this only once.....
A statement was made that the NHS (etc) was being sold off and I asked if it mattered as long as the service standard was maintained.
User asked about the guarantee of the standard being maintained, and you asked who would police the service delivery.
I asked who guarantees the standard, and polices the delivery now (under the present system).
Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 21 2011, 11:01 PM
Ah, I see, you confused the issue. user23 and I didn't ask any questions. You said what does it matter if quality could be guaranteed, user23 said quality couldn't be guaranteed and I said that it (the services) couldn't be policed properly.
In almost all cases I have seen (especially) where low paid services are out-sourced, quality drops.
In a nutshell, what ever the merits of the current situation, I feel that quality will drop.
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 21 2011, 11:24 PM
In almost all cases I have seen (especially) where low paid services are out-sourced, quality drops.
In a nutshell, what ever the merits of the current situation, I feel that quality will drop.
There were not 'questions' (marked with question marks and an upward vocal inflection), but statements that questioned the preposition.
A major issue across pubic service is the lack of audit, weakness in line management and a lack of will to seek full value from contracted suppliers.
As there is such poor 'guarantee' and policing structures operated now (they may be written, but they tend not to be enforced), what difference if that remains so in the future?
Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 21 2011, 11:50 PM
I've already said: "In a nutshell, what ever the merits of the current situation, I feel that quality will drop."
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 21 2011, 11:54 PM
Thinking of the NHS....
The Doctors/Nurses/Physiotherapists/radiographers etc will be less competent?
The equipment will be less good?
Interested in what you include under 'quality', how you can look into the future, and how you assess outputs qualitatively.
Posted by: Jayjay Feb 22 2011, 08:16 AM
The Doctors/Nurses/Physiotherapists/radiographers etc will be less competent?
The equipment will be less good?
Interested in what you include under 'quality', how you can look into the future, and how you assess outputs qualitatively.
As I understand it - GP's will be given a budget, which in most cases they will not be qualified or have time to implement. Therefore they will have to outsource to a private company. That company will have staff and premises to upkeep and they will make a profit. Presuming the government give the current spend to the GP (I have not heard differently), less money will be going to the frontline NHS service.
Will the new bill be confined to British companies? If not could we be looking at another Cadbury?
Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 08:35 AM
The Doctors/Nurses/Physiotherapists/radiographers etc will be less competent?
The equipment will be less good?
Interested in what you include under 'quality', how you can look into the future, and how you assess outputs qualitatively.
On the whole, yes I think it will - it is inevitable - but I was thinking more along the lines of the cleaners, 'cooks', and jobs like that.
I'm not looking into the future, but drawing from experience in the past.
Posted by: Bloggo Feb 22 2011, 08:52 AM
At the present moment the Government has stated that the commissioning of NHS services and associated budgets will be delegated to GPs.
The detail of this change has still not been published however it is possible that the services being provided by the Primary Care Trusts could be hived off to private companies but it is also likely that the present staff doing this work will transfer across to the surgeries.
It is far too early to speculate whether or not this will result in a reduced standard of care in any department or in fact a marked improvement and to state that there will be a deterioation in care standards and supporting services is just an unsustantiated opinion.
Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 09:25 AM
Of course it is just opinion, but an opinion based on previous experience.
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 22 2011, 10:15 AM
All subcontracted out & all suffering under the onus of profit....
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 22 2011, 11:59 AM
I'm not looking into the future, but drawing from experience in the past.
What is inevitable about an individual losing their competency merely through a change of who pays their wage?
Posted by: Jayjay Feb 22 2011, 02:35 PM
A genuine question, not point scoring or taking sides - can anyone recall bin men refusing to empty a bin where the lid is slightly open before they were hived out to the private sector?
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 22 2011, 02:53 PM
I worked on the bins. ( not locally & as a temp ). The bin men I was with knew the round so well it was like a choreographed ballet. They knew every single house & every single bin. They had worked out the fastest time to empty the bins & would often stop down a street, knowing it was marginally quicker to empty the bins from the other direction later in the day.
At some houses we had to go into the garden & round the back to get the bins, other houses if the bin was not at the top of the drive it was left unemptied.
The blokes did it so fast that they'd have the entire days bins emptied by noon. So they all clocked off 4 hrs early.
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 22 2011, 02:54 PM
Before deciding where the 'blame' for that stupidity lies, check the contract arrangements and requirements laid down by the contracting Council.
I have never had a problem after nearly 40 years in the area, except under WBC some refusals to take 'garden waste'
Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 03:05 PM
I don't know; what is?
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 22 2011, 03:19 PM
You made the statement....
Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 03:29 PM
What statement? You get extra points be being accurate.
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 22 2011, 03:32 PM
Posts 140 & 144
Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2011, 03:34 PM
Yes, but I have difficulty in reconciling them with your question.
Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 22 2011, 03:42 PM
ok
Posted by: Bloggo Feb 23 2011, 10:22 AM
Care to enlighten us regarding what your previous experience has been in this context?
Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2011, 12:36 PM
Afraid not, but I will say, when the Government has out sourced things like sanitation and cooking, standards have dropped. Examples exists in the NHS, schools and MoD. I have direct and indirect experience with these areas. In private concerns, I have heard how outsourcing things like transport, IT, and security, don't always fulfil end user expectations either.
It need not drop, but financial strains sometimes mean corners are cut. This is not true in every instance of course, but what is also the case, people are also sometimes employed on weaker employee contracts when outsourcing is implemented.
Posted by: Bloggo Feb 23 2011, 12:55 PM
It need not drop, but financial strains sometimes mean corners are cut. This is not true in every instance of course, but what is also the case, people are also sometimes employed on weaker employee contracts when outsourcing is implemented.
OK, I guess you can't be more specific.
What I would say is that the enormity of this change in delivering care to the masses will present challenges that will prove to be unprecedented and the results will be very mixed.
We will just have to wait and see how it turns out. For the good I hope.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 23 2011, 01:22 PM
It need not drop, but financial strains sometimes mean corners are cut. This is not true in every instance of course, but what is also the case, people are also sometimes employed on weaker employee contracts when outsourcing is implemented.
Privatisation hasn't been all bad. British Gas, BT, British Leyland as examples. There is already a thriving private health care industry in the UK and my limited experience is that its quality is considerably higher than the NHS. Privatisation doesn't mean the end of the NHS, it just means public health care is delivered by private companies rather than directly by the state.
I feel the current talk in general is rather more laissez faire than I'm completely comfortable with, but I believe the principle is right. Anyroad, I'm sure the government will bottle it.
For the record I don't see that this is really part of the Big Society, though I appreciate David Cameron says it is. Big Society is still fundamentally about society for me, and though that involves the end of the Big Fat State I personally see that more as a consequence than a goal in itself. But I wouldn't take much convincing.
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 23 2011, 01:27 PM
You get what you pay for.
Posted by: Bloggo Feb 23 2011, 01:32 PM
Sadly I don't think that is so as far too many pay nothing at all.
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 23 2011, 01:40 PM
Often through no fault of their own. Do we want to end up like the USA?
Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2011, 01:43 PM
They have the 'pick of the work'. There's no private A&E and private health depends partly on the existence of the NHS for treatment space and equipment. I'd buy the private health care is a better idea line if someone could demonstrate the comparative cost per person between the business models.
Posted by: Bloggo Feb 23 2011, 01:45 PM
Yes, I understand but I feel that the pendulum has swung too far in the favour of the system abusers and too few are being asked to pay for too many.
Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2011, 02:29 PM
I suspect that the NHS is a victim of it's own size and success. I have seen a number of TV programs that seem to demonstrate how wasteful the service is. Outsourcing and privatisation is designed to make it more competitive, but as we sometimes have seen in the past, bodies charged with regulating the privatised former public services don't always have the muscle required top do the job 'properly'. Currently we have the ballot box to 'regulate' the public services, and should privatisation 'fail', it is almost impossible to reverse the decision.
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 23 2011, 03:03 PM
more like people are living too long
Posted by: Bloggo Feb 23 2011, 03:20 PM
Yes, that too and that issue will now be amplified by the wave of "baby boomers" retiring this year. But hey, the majority of them will have contributed to the welfare system since they started work at 15 and deserve to be looked after.
Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2011, 03:58 PM
The problem is - in theory - NI was never at the level it needs to be, to cope with demand.
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 23 2011, 04:00 PM
But in 1947 the average male life expectancy was under 64 years. The idea was that the NHS would keep you fit to work, not fit to retire.
Posted by: Jayjay Feb 23 2011, 10:52 PM
The report says all services except for police, armed services or judiciary will be auctioned off. This could mean your NHS records going to India, your tax being in China, NHS call centres in Mongolia and your state pension in Libya.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)