IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

9 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> End of the Big Society
Simon Kirby
post Feb 4 2011, 05:49 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



Does Liverpool City Council's 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.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Feb 4 2011, 05:52 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



This was quite interesting to start with, then you turned into yet another allotment rant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Feb 4 2011, 05:53 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



Ah, Mr. Smith.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 4 2011, 06:01 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 4 2011, 05:52 PM) *
This was quite interesting to start with, then you turned into yet another allotment rant.

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Feb 4 2011, 06:06 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (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.
Yes, because as we know by Simon's own admission the only person creating "grass-roots demand for allotment self-management" is Simon himself.

It's the Big Society, not the Billy-No-Mates Society
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 4 2011, 06:17 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 4 2011, 06:06 PM) *
Yes, because as we know by Simon's own admission the only person creating "grass-roots demand for allotment self-management" is Simon himself.

Is that before or after the council showed their teeth?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Feb 4 2011, 06:46 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 4 2011, 06:06 PM) *
Yes, because as we know by Simon's own admission the only person creating "grass-roots demand for allotment self-management" is Simon himself.

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.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 4 2011, 07:03 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 4 2011, 07:23 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (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.

Maybe, but I thought it was about society providing the labour and maybe the state provides the tools and means, as it were.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Feb 4 2011, 07:24 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (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.
Exactly, one bloke does not a Big Society make.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 4 2011, 07:29 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 4 2011, 07:24 PM) *
Exactly, one bloke does not a Big Society make.

Except that wasn't dannyboys point, but it gives you another opportunity to knock SK, eh?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Feb 4 2011, 07:32 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (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.

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.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 4 2011, 07:55 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 4 2011, 07:32 PM) *
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.

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Feb 4 2011, 08:08 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 4 2011, 07:55 PM) *
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.
Spot on danny, as I see it anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 4 2011, 08:14 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 4 2011, 07:55 PM) *
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.

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.

QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 4 2011, 08:08 PM) *
Spot on danny, as I prefer to see it anyway.

Edited for accuracy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Feb 4 2011, 08:17 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 4 2011, 08:14 PM) *
Edited for accuracy.
Incorrect.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Feb 4 2011, 08:38 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 4 2011, 07:55 PM) *
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.

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".


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 4 2011, 08:42 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Feb 4 2011, 08:48 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 4 2011, 08:38 PM) *
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".


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? wink.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Feb 4 2011, 08:58 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Cognosco @ Feb 4 2011, 08:48 PM) *
Plus they would not be able to use the allotments for council parking either? Of course that would not enter the equation would it? wink.gif

Ha! laugh.gif


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 10:35 PM