Seeing as Sutton, the borough where i live is one of the areas that the "big society" will be started in, i thought id see what i could find out about this ambigous policy point.
Having visited the big society website and read there section marked "the idea" i was no
surprised to see that in 290 words there is still no real explanation as to what the big society really means. There are a number of satistic's thrown about such as "only four in ten of us believe we can influence local decisions" (incidently surely it comes across as more extreme if they utalise the negative "six out of ten think there powerless to affect local government decisions" considering this is all bluster, it looks like bluster that they just rushed and didnt even take the time to properly conceal) and "ony one in thirty three attend public meetings" (also while we are on the subject of bluster surely the most relevant statistic is the low turnout over the last four general elections ,lower turnouts at local elections and even lower still at european elections, of course that might raise questions over their mandate and while the conservatives want open debate they dont want open debate about that) there is very little information on how to remedy these facts apart from the creation of the big society, so far it sounds like a farce but if i left it there id be guilty of that same bluster that i criticize above so instead i decided to dig a little deeper and look at some of the manifestations of the big society. The first point of call is the Treasury office in which we are being invited to give our ideas about cuts and where they should take place. A selection of these ideas have been posted and they arent too inspiring, the majority of people arguing about things such as stationary and the general details, which, in truth would knock little to nothing off the deficit.
David Cameron described the big society as his "great passion" during its launch in liverpool, as i have come to expect from our new prime minister, it was all style little substance , the crux of it seemed to be that he would use the money from dormant bank accounts too help people take over local post offices and buy out a rural pub and another small scale projects. I have two main issues with this 1) in my personal opinion its wrong to take money out of peoples banks no longer how long those accounts are dormant, that money should be given to the rightful heirs because the government has no right to take it and 2) what help are these small scale projects going to be, surely the government should be more focused on finding employment for those out of work or funding education.
Personally i aplaud the idea that we could form this "Big society" where people in society work together , where charity forms a bigger part of society, where more people undertake volunter work and where government attempts to aid this progression and some could argue that this is a sign that the Tories have really changed to the cuddly friendly party Cameron has tried to make them. I for one though and not fooled and rather cynically i will admit believe that this is a cover up for the spending cuts that are going to follow, the Tories didnt win an outright majority, therefore if they get the consent of the people by having them give there suggestions to the treasury and take part in these projects , they have legitamised these cuts and in doing so no questions can be raised at the next question about the mandate of the cutting campaign, because we the people participated and allowed them to do it whilst giving them a helpful nudge in the right direction of what needed trimming, and then took the slack by voluntering in there grand scheme because believe me if i was in government and i wanted to help perpetuate the manifestation of a Great Grand Society, the last thing i would do is cut the governments spending on that society. Ultimatly these efforts will be self defeating, with one hand they shall build up this society , and with the other smash it down.
Having visited the big society website and read there section marked "the idea" i was no
surprised to see that in 290 words there is still no real explanation as to what the big society really means. There are a number of satistic's thrown about such as "only four in ten of us believe we can influence local decisions" (incidently surely it comes across as more extreme if they utalise the negative "six out of ten think there powerless to affect local government decisions" considering this is all bluster, it looks like bluster that they just rushed and didnt even take the time to properly conceal) and "ony one in thirty three attend public meetings" (also while we are on the subject of bluster surely the most relevant statistic is the low turnout over the last four general elections ,lower turnouts at local elections and even lower still at european elections, of course that might raise questions over their mandate and while the conservatives want open debate they dont want open debate about that) there is very little information on how to remedy these facts apart from the creation of the big society, so far it sounds like a farce but if i left it there id be guilty of that same bluster that i criticize above so instead i decided to dig a little deeper and look at some of the manifestations of the big society. The first point of call is the Treasury office in which we are being invited to give our ideas about cuts and where they should take place. A selection of these ideas have been posted and they arent too inspiring, the majority of people arguing about things such as stationary and the general details, which, in truth would knock little to nothing off the deficit.
David Cameron described the big society as his "great passion" during its launch in liverpool, as i have come to expect from our new prime minister, it was all style little substance , the crux of it seemed to be that he would use the money from dormant bank accounts too help people take over local post offices and buy out a rural pub and another small scale projects. I have two main issues with this 1) in my personal opinion its wrong to take money out of peoples banks no longer how long those accounts are dormant, that money should be given to the rightful heirs because the government has no right to take it and 2) what help are these small scale projects going to be, surely the government should be more focused on finding employment for those out of work or funding education.
Personally i aplaud the idea that we could form this "Big society" where people in society work together , where charity forms a bigger part of society, where more people undertake volunter work and where government attempts to aid this progression and some could argue that this is a sign that the Tories have really changed to the cuddly friendly party Cameron has tried to make them. I for one though and not fooled and rather cynically i will admit believe that this is a cover up for the spending cuts that are going to follow, the Tories didnt win an outright majority, therefore if they get the consent of the people by having them give there suggestions to the treasury and take part in these projects , they have legitamised these cuts and in doing so no questions can be raised at the next question about the mandate of the cutting campaign, because we the people participated and allowed them to do it whilst giving them a helpful nudge in the right direction of what needed trimming, and then took the slack by voluntering in there grand scheme because believe me if i was in government and i wanted to help perpetuate the manifestation of a Great Grand Society, the last thing i would do is cut the governments spending on that society. Ultimatly these efforts will be self defeating, with one hand they shall build up this society , and with the other smash it down.
No comments:
Post a Comment