The Big Society - changes to consultation requirements Options

[Richard Garvie]

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/government...ve-local-people

I thought the Big Society and localism was going to lead to more consultation, yet it appears that the requirement to consult is being done away with? This link above is an independent website, can anyone explain to me why this change will be positive?

[Simon Kirby]

Removing the duty to involve isn't totally at odds with the Big Society because there services are liberated from the state and run directly by service users, but it is at odds with Localism because people can't take greater ownership of their communities if their local government isn't going to involve them.

It was always a shame that most councils at the parish level escaped the duty to involve and consult under Best Value. You might expect a council to involve and consult its service users anyway, but Newbury Town Council is a good example of the extraordinary lengths to which a council will go to shut their service users up.

Whether Best Value itself was a good idea is really a separate issue. It was outrageously centralised and loaded with Borwnist metrics and KPIs employing thousands of local government officers to monitor targets rather then deliver a service.

[Andy Capp]

You wait until 'panda' gets to read your last post Simon!

[GMR]

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/government...ve-local-people

I thought the Big Society and localism was going to lead to more consultation, yet it appears that the requirement to consult is being done away with? This link above is an independent website, can anyone explain to me why this change will be positive?

"About us

False Economy is for everyone concerned about the impact of the government's spending cuts on their community, their family or their job."



People should realise before criticising this government about their spending cuts that.......



1). We got into this mess because of labour's over spending and not regulating the banks.... in fact they weakened the laws governing banking regulations.



2). If Labour had won they would have had tougher sanctions than even Thatcher could manage (this is according to Brown).



3). Alistair Darling said that if he would have still be chancellor his "tightening of the belt wouldn't have been that far from the Coalition Governments".



Before we attack this government let us just think how we got into this mess in the first place and what the labour would have done if they had won. They are now being clever because they no longer have to make the decision to correct their problems.



Like 1979 another government has had to come along and sort out the problems that Labour had left us.

[GrumblingAgain]

People should realise before criticising this government about their spending cuts that.......

1). We got into this mess because of labour's over spending and not regulating the banks.... in fact they weakened the laws governing banking regulations.

2). If Labour had won they would have had tougher sanctions than even Thatcher could manage (this is according to Brown).

3). Alistair Darling said that if he would have still be chancellor his "tightening of the belt wouldn't have been that far from the Coalition Governments".

Before we attack this government let us just think how we got into this mess in the first place and what the labour would have done if they had won. They are now being clever because they no longer have to make the decision to correct their problems.

Like 1979 another government has had to come along and sort out the problems that Labour had left us.

+1

The left are very good at conveniently forgetting some of the past. They never have a problem remembering what happened during the period 1979 to 1997 of course, but history before 1979 or the period 1997 to May 2010 is just a blank to them.

[NWNREADER]

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/government...ve-local-people

I thought the Big Society and localism was going to lead to more consultation, yet it appears that the requirement to consult is being done away with? This link above is an independent website, can anyone explain to me why this change will be positive?

Independent? Looking at the aims, supporter list etc, I'd say they are not.
Entitled to their view, and a recognised 'other point of view', but not independent.

[Simon Kirby]

I don't see that the motivation behind the group is at issue. The issue is Best Value and whether losing the duty to consult and involve will further separate public service users from providers, and whether that's a good thing or not in the context of Big Society and Localism.

[NWNREADER]

I don't see that the motivation behind the group is at issue. The issue is Best Value and whether losing the duty to consult and involve will further separate public service users from providers, and whether that's a good thing or not in the context of Big Society and Localism.

The proposer of the change will only give the good news, the opposer will only give the downside. An independent review would balance the pro's and con's and set out the options for an informed decision whether to support or oppose.

A review produced by a pro or anti grouping is never independent, in my view.

[Simon Kirby]

The proposer of the change will only give the good news, the opposer will only give the downside. An independent review would balance the pro's and con's and set out the options for an informed decision whether to support or oppose.

A review produced by a pro or anti grouping is never independent, in my view.

Sorry, I see what you mean. Yes, I don't doubt that they have a political bias, but then I'm not bothered what they have to say about it. Do you have a view on Best Value and the duty to consult and involve?