What is the 'big society'?

[llcoolphil]

So i should not read comment pieces in future i should only read bbc news - oh no because that has comment in it too? what am i to do? I know i'll just stay ill-informed.

[llcoolphil]

"but who is suggesting the ideas is all important. Context."

the person or persons making the proposals is as important as what the proposals are. If the BNP (for example) were to start saying that we should have a more caring compassionate society, you just know that it would have a different 'intention' than if the Dalai Lama was saying it.

The context in which something is said has to be acknowledged

[eFestivals]

So having parents setting up their own schools would be a huge improvement then because we would have an extremely active governing body

unfortunately, where that exact thing is happening (the free school that Toby Young is involved with), it's at the expense of services for kids that are far more disadvantaged than those that will be attending that 'free school'.

So while the principle might have its merits, the practice certainly doesn't.

But many of the principles are sound.

Except of course that none of the things will be democratically accountable despite using public funds to a lesser or greater degree, and that access to anything that 'the Big Society' might deliver will be decided by patronage and not right.

[llcoolphil]

I see coolPhil is still wrapped up in his own self improtance while actually making zero difference in the world

Started to miss this place

[llcoolphil]

quote name='eFestivals' timestamp='1298029359' post='3501902']

unfortunately, where that exact thing is happening (the free school that Toby Young is involved with), it's at the expense of services for kids that are far more disadvantaged than those that will be attending that 'free school'.

So while the principle might have its merits, the practice certainly doesn't.

[llcoolphil]

Its clear as mud

[eFestivals]

But there are many areas of current provision that have no direct democratic accountability and the use of public funds on non-accountable quangoes was rife under the last government.

The likes of 'free schools' and many other 'big society' ideas continue that demolition of democratic accountability - an easy example being the just-dropped plans for the 'national forests', which would have removed a limited and not-direct accountability and replaced it with none-at-all. Just about every 'big society' idea goes the same way.

As for quangos in general, there's been two PMs before Dave Moron who have come into office saying they'd reduce the number of quangos and reduce the spending on them. Both left office with a greater number of quangos in existence and with spending increased in real terms.

Which, I think it's fair to conclude, gets to demonstrate that those leaders - and now Dave Moron - like to make nice noises about being in support of the principle of democratic accountability, but in reality it scares the shit out of them and they'll do whatever it takes to reduce it.

There are already services run by organisations on behalf of the state where access isn't determined by patronage but right. Children's residential care is to a huge extent run by organisations (private and charitable) on behalf of the state. Access to them has nothing to do with patronage.

These are things where there's a statutory duty in law for councils to provide those services - and Dave Moron has said he wants to reduce the number of things which have that duty. Because they are things with that statutory duty, they are fully funded by the state and democratically accountable for them (even if that accountability isn't all it could be).

For the majority of the things which Dave Moron is going on about, they won't have that duty, and neither will they be fully funded - and so the democratic accountability is lost, as is the right in law to access to those things. And so they become things where access is via patronage.

[llcoolphil]

The likes of 'free schools' and many other 'big society' ideas continue that demolition of democratic accountability - an easy example being the just-dropped plans for the 'national forests', which would have removed a limited and not-direct accountability and replaced it with none-at-all. Just about every 'big society' idea goes the same way.

[llcoolphil]

I'm not dismissing the concept (however vaguely it's being put over by Cameron), I'm dismissing their version of it.

[eFestivals]

I'll not go into whether the forests sell off was ever a real plan (I think it serves Camoron well to appear to have appeased voters by listening on what was effectively a non-policy and bought compliance on what is yet to come, but that is by the by). But would taking the forests out of the control of the Foresty Commission and putting them in the hands of,say, The National Trust or The Woodland Trust been a worse option? Both organisations are accountable to their members, members that have demonstrated an absolute committment to preserving rather than destroying the things in their care.

Yes, it would have been a worse option. The FC is an arm of govt - and so have an amount of democratic accountability even if it's not all it could be - while the NT and WT are not.

But anyway, it wouldn't have been just the likes of the NT and WT. For example, the c**tryside Alliance had yet to decide whether to support the view of its own members and be against the sell-off, or whether there was an opportunity for them to coin it (they spoke of "the revenue raising opportunities") and so they'd f**k over their members.

While the same might not have happened within the NT and WT, who's to say it wouldn't? If nothing else it would have given the management increased scope to pay themselves more to the detriment of that money being used for more sociable purposes.

And the proposals didn't exclude private companies from being the ones to take over those forests. Who's to say it would have been organisations such as the NT and WT (which I accept a good proportion of the population have a decent amount of trust in - but only currently; who's to knopw what happens in the future?).

That's why Camoron's plans are essentially flawed. But the principle of devolving power over and responsibility for services away from the centre and down to the local remains very much worth exploring about how we might be able to do things better.

There's few that are against that idea in principle.

It's the 'how' it's done which is where the problems are. Giving power to local but not-democratically-accountable local groups as Dave Moron is intending is immediately against that idea of principle.

And of course, who will be the people in control of local groups like that? As is always the case, they're dominated by the likes of the wifes of the wealthy, because they're the ones with the time to devote to them - the rest of us find our time mostly consumed just trying to get by.

[llcoolphil]

let's try and work it out..?

[llcoolphil]

Yes, it would have been a worse option. The FC is an arm of govt - and so have an amount of democratic accountability even if it's not all it could be - while the NT and WT are not.

[llcoolphil]

Cameron's version

[eFestivals]

What is this democratic accountability you talk about? A government was about to sell off forests entirely because it could and without any mandate to do so. A government that has no mandate to do so is about to decimate public services. At what point is democratic accountability about to save anything?

I wasn't referring to democratic accountability in regard to whether they're sold or not, but in regard to how they're run.

Because it's an arm of govt, any citizen has a right to pursue them thru the courts if they're not abiding by their duties. The same is not true (to the same extent, anyhow) if they'd have been transferred to any other non-govt body as Dave Moron was planning.

And the likes of the NT would have run them in the manner that suited their members and themselves as an organisation. There will be differences with that to how the people of the country as a whole would like to see them run.

That's the detail of who would own the forests. The principle of whether the government through the foresty commission remain the best people to do this remains open to exploration.

only if you think a bunch of the self interested (locals in some of the plans, or not locals in the case of NT) should have a greater say over a *national* resource than the *national* population of the country.

Look at the cuts Manchester City Council has just announced. Giving power to democratically elected officials is about to have a devastating effect on local services

Ahhh ... the tory version of events in Manchester. There's a different version too.

The simple fact is that they *have to* makes cuts somewhere, because those democratically elected *local* officials have been forced to do so by a national govt. Those locally elected officials will be accountable for their actions in May: the govt who are forcing changes on them (not necessarily the changes they're making, but changes all the same) won't be.

Whatever the truth of the different versions of events, how is the national govt dictating things to locals bringing about a greater amount of local accountability?

My local community isn't full of what you'd call the wealthy (its a council estate) but manages to provide a whole range of services. The principle remains good, this version not so. We dont appear to be in disagreement on this. As a principle it is very worthy of exploring

It's only worth exploring if things don't get hi-jacked by the self-interested against the wishes of everyone - which is ultimately ALWAYS the result.

The simple fact is that only some people are in the position to contribute in the way you're suggesting, and those who are most excluded are the poorest (by the financial reality of their position). Giving power to a small self-interested group to the exclusion of everyone else is no improvement.

[llcoolphil]

One aspect I'm apprehensive about is how religious beliefs would come into play.

Imagine if there was a uk 'version' of the Tea Party, and the kind of proposals they'd come up with... which Cameron would almost undoubtedly approve. The core values which we're all (apparently) supposed to agree on.

I think it's important to highlight a difference between getting involved and actually setting up a school.

[llcoolphil]

I wasn't referring to democratic accountability in regard to whether they're sold or not, but in regard to how they're run.

Because it's an arm of govt, any citizen has a right to pursue them thru the courts if they're not abiding by their duties. The same is not true (to the same extent, anyhow) if they'd have been transferred to any other non-govt body as Dave Moron was planning.

[llcoolphil]

Here's one

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/15/big-society-community-networks

and another

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/17/david-robinson-community-links-early-action

and another

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/26/community-group-glasgow-violence-gangs

[llcoolphil]

i know, but I can see the problems those schools present becoming more so

[eFestivals]

If you put the right legislative framework in place when transferring there is no need for it to be any different

But the point is that they weren't going to. They were going to have different terms of reference to how they're3 currently run by the FC - and even tory party members kicked off about it, hence the u-turn.

So exactly as we have now where a government that has no mandate is doing just what it wants to suit itself and its supporters - and there are bloody huge differences between that and what the country as a whole wants.

True, tho there's little difference now to how things are with any govt. That's the result of a FPTP system, and not having PR.

But that aside, they're still democratically accountable to the whole country in retrospect via the next election. The National Trust is not democratically accountable (apart from perhaps to it's own members - I'm not 100% sure how it's run).

There are a number of models that can be explored.

True. But currently we have a national resource that is run as a national resource and accountable as a national resource.

Any other model that might be used to give the same (or greater) national accountability would require a new - and expensive - level of bureaucracy.

It's not a tory version that they are closing libraries and leisure centres. It's a true version because that is exactly what they are going to do. There are certainly different interpretations on why they are doing it I'll grant you that,

that's what I referring to.

but having a democratically accountable central government and a democratically accountable local government has done bugger all to save the five libraries they are going to close or to keep open the 26 libraries on a friday. Democratic accountability has done less than bugger all in the protection of these services

You're mis-understanding how democratic accountability works - it can only ever work properly in retrospect.

It's certainly the case that the savings that those closed libraries (and whatever else) are going to be making are savings which would have to found from a budget somewhere within the council. Making those savings is something that has been forced onto the council, it's not something they have free choice over.

Having those services run by a charity or volunteers would make no difference or very little difference to the savings that could be made, or if they did it would be at the expense of something else - such as it being a professionally run service that's managed by professional librarians who know what running a library is really about, rather than thinking it's merely about putting some books on a shelf for people to choose from.

You see, as soon as you start introducing words like 'always' into the debate, you're being foolish. Capitalising it just make you look even dafter. There are projects running up and down the country that prove you wrong. I gave you a link to a Guardian Society article last year about where these ideas were working (Im trying to find it but cant remember when it was last year)but - and you'll never believe this - you dismissed it without reading it because you said knew what it said and I was just buying into coalition lies - The Society section of The Guardian isn't renowned for supporting the coalition (you can lead a horse to water...). The reason so many voluntary groups are up in arms about the way this is being implemented isnt because it cant be done - it is being done up and down the country already - but because the money needed to make it work is disappearing - volunteers need organising and that needs funding

Volunteers = the self interested. It doesn't equal a service run for the benefit of all.

Or do you think that people volunteer only out of wanting to do good for others without having an idea of exactly how they can do good for others?

I live on a council estate. I think Im pretty well placed to see what can be achieved, even by the poorest.

I've not said that nothing can be achieved.

I've said that what is achieved is slanted in certain directions, rather than trying to serve everyone's interests fairly.

Out of interest, what local groups are you involved in?

Are you involved in the group that's 'achieving' on the council estate where you live?

What have you achieved via your own involvement (if you have it), and can you be absolutely certain that it's not been to the detriment of some?

Currently, I'm involved in all of the publicly funded groupings operating in my area - via my vote. There's some who wish to take away my involvement.

[llcoolphil]

I don't think making it residential is that important really. It was necessary for that set up

The involvement of the kids... respect for everyone from everyone

Smaller classes definitley helps....

[eFestivals]

Im convinced it only works because it's residential but we'll agree to disagree.

How are you going to involve 1500 kids in the running of their school? What are you going to do with the kids who decide they want to play all day instead of go to the lesson that has been timetabled for them? I cant think of a school that currently doesn't advocate respect for everyone, by everyone - what do we do differently in a secondary school that follows the Summerhill model? And, crucially, Summerhill school has a roll of less than 100 pupils. Do you not think that the single most important factor (alongside the fact you have to pay to go there so attract to a huge extent kids from the middle classes)in why the school works is because it has nigh on bugger all pupils to teach?

while I don't know anything about the specific school you're talking about, it doesn't sound too dissimilar to the Steiner schools that exist around the country, tho (as far as I'm aware) they're not residential.

While I wouldn't want to send my own kid to them for a number of reasons, I'm able to see that they do a more than decent job - if nothing else via my own nephew and nieces who all went on to the Brit school, which is hugely over-subscribed.

[bunique]

If you want me to be specific about how I think some schools could be run, then A.S. Neill's Summerhill is a good start

[llcoolphil]

But the point is that they weren't going to. They were going to have different terms of reference to how they're3 currently run by the FC - and even tory party members kicked off about it, hence the u-turn.

[llcoolphil]

You're mis-understanding how democratic accountability works - it can only ever work properly in retrospect.

[eFestivals]

Im saying the FC is not necessarily the best organisation to look after our forests and asking whether a better model can be found

There's no one - no one at all - saying that the FC are doing a bad job. The opinion of them is the exact opposite.

There's perhaps an issue with them being both forest regulator and forest manager - tho it's only the commercial operators who object, because the FC are stopping them cutting down whole forests to then sell off the cleared land.

What do you mean 'but that aside'? 'that' is the crucial part. If I put aside all the shit things the government is doing, its a great government!

I agree - that's the most crutial part of all, getting representative govt.

But until we have that representative govt, everything is operating within the electoral system we have. And we're discussing issues here within the electoral system we have.

Whilst that is certainly a statement of fact, why is this an inherently good arrangement?

because national resources being run for specifically local objectives is far further away from being an inherently good arrangement than national resources run for national objectives.

Why do we have to have national accountability?

because they're national resources - that means it's not for locals to decide what's right for them, but the whole country.