What is the 'big society'?

[llcoolphil]

in this instance - Summerhill - that's probably true. Remember many of the pupils (at Summerhill) have 'issues', and go there because they would'nt fit anywhere else.

Just found out that it isn't only residential

[llcoolphil]

There's a non-residential indie school in N London

[eFestivals]

Im not misunderstanding, it's my entire point. Unelecting the coalition after it's already sold the forests to a bunch of private individuals does bugger all to stop the sale. Booting them out of power isn't going to get the forests back. However, handing control to a charity who have to seek agreement BEFORE they make substantive changes - that's a significantly better kind of accountability as far as I can see.

It's no different at all - it's still all down to the say of that govt, and no one else.

And if the govt doesn't like what that charity or whoever else is doing, they just take it back again anyway. There's a huge history of just that happening.

But meanwhile, that charity is operating a public resource with no accountability at all.

But it doesnt save the libraries

It doesn't - because it's not simply a case of being able to address libraries in isolation from other services or without regard to effects caused elsewhere, which is exactly what ....

Aye - and that self interest is more often than not 'making where I live a better place to live'.

... this tries to bring about - a pretence (but not a reality) that something can be improved in isolation of everything else. It's a PR trick.

People volunteer for a host of reasons - but nearly always good ones

absolutely - I'm not disputing that their motivations are bad. But the effects can be, all the same.

Give me a for example

do you really need me to give an example to demonstrate that every person that's ever lived has pet likes and pet hates?

Because there's not the same accountability within a voluntary sector, those pet likes and pet hates become the policies, rather than the more balanced attempts of a proper public policy.

Yes I am - I'm involved in a number of groups and the only ones I can think that this has had a detrimental effect on are those that cause anti-social behaviour. The last government thought what had been achieved by volunteers and other organisations (the police, housing association etc) on my estate was amazing. The services now offered as opposed to 10 years ago and the crime levels compared with 10 years ago kind of bear it out.

why do you think that none of these same things couldn't have been achieved via a properly democratic and accountable structure?

If people put the same efforts into calling the public bodies to account as they do at playing personal power games there's no doubt in my own mind that all the same could be achieved.

OK so you go out and vote. Doesn't really make you an authority on what is and isn't being achieved by many, many groups up and down the country though does it

Have I claimed to be an authority at what they're doing?

My issue is that they're not properly publicly accountable - and you don't need to be an authority to know that's the case.

[llcoolphil]

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.

[llcoolphil]

If people put the same efforts into calling the public bodies to account as they do at playing personal power games there's no doubt in my own mind that all the same could be achieved.

[llcoolphil]

how many teachers would Trident pay for?

[eFestivals]

That is simply, totally and completely plain wrong. There are many people critical of what the FC has done over the years.

ok, I over-stated it ... but it's still the case that there's no mad clamour for them to be abolished, and the criticisms are of the kind so minor in the main that only an ideologically-led govt would act on them.

You know, the type of ideologically led govt we have right now, which you disputed they were around 6 months back. From your posts here, I'm pleased to see you appear to have changed you mind on that part, at least.

Any electoral system is only ever going to be accountable AFTER the event - doesnt matter how proportional it is, its actions are always going to be retrospectively accountable.

True - that's not something I disagree with.

But a govt that needs 50% of the vote to be a govt is more accountable than one that only needs 30% of the vote.

The road alongside my house is a national resource, you can come and drive on it anytime you like. It's managed locally though. Doesn't seem to make any difference whatsoever.

It's managed locally, but within nationally-set rules.

But, to be a pedant, it doesn't actually class as being a national resource - otherwise it wouldn't be managed by your local council.

[llcoolphil]

But a govt that needs 50% of the vote to be a govt is more accountable than one that only needs 30% of the vote.

[bunique]

I think the extra investment in creating smaller class sizes would be paid back through a better educated, supported, qualified, engaged youth less inclined towards anti-social behaviour, etc.

[eFestivals]

Oh the irony!

I'll bow out now because whilst you have the completely misplaced notion that a majority of people act out of some personal power game mentality, there is little point in carrying on the debate. I speak as a person who is surrounded by people that give up so much of their own time and effort to make things better for those around them. Going out and voting doesn't give you the same perspective Im afraid. We aren't all like you Neil, and it's plain arrogant to assume we are.

A person can choose to be a small fish in a big pond, or a big fish in a small pond. People who volunteer are being big fishes in small ponds - and that gives them a greater amount of personal power than if they're a small fish in a big pond. None of that is factually incorrect.

If the same efforts were made by the same people within existing (public) structures the same differences could be made - yet it doesn't happen at the same rate. So there's something else in the mix, and the only thing that jumps out at me is the power and influence they get to gain personally.

Yet of course, if they have that greater amount of personal power and influence, it means that the power and influence of other individuals is being undermined in their favour. Why should those others be disenfranchised of their own power within society?

Whether volunteers are volunteering out of a concious desire for personal power and influence I don't know, but they very definitely get that out of it by default ... unless of course everyone joins in with volunteering (or as some rather dumb people keep suggesting, if people are 'forced to volunteer' ), which gets to be the exact same situation as we have now, where the responibilities are spread across everyone rather than just the few who 'step forwards'.

It's yet another breakdown in the idea of society in favour of the idea of the individual. It's the road to hell.

As for any arrogance, I'm seeing that within your dismissal of the very definite fact that people do get greater personal power and influence out of volunteering, and the dismissal of the effect onto others.

[eFestivals]

it's a common philosphical 'point'. Does anyone do anything totally selflessly? We might do things that also do good for others, but how many do anything if there isn't anything to be got out of it... even if it's simply for the satisfaction of helping others and/or doing the 'right thing'?

spot on tony.

[eFestivals]

Like the current coalition you mean? They got more than 50% between them - and not what you'd describe as accountable

they got to be that coalition not because a coalition is the most likely outcome of the electoral system (as it would be under PR), but because of a fluke of our FPTP system which isn't meant to result in coalitions.

Because it's that not-meant-to-happen fluke, what comes from it is a different thing.

With established systems of PR, because of its very likely outcome, there's a recognition of that very likely outcome before an election happens, and that effects what is said/promised before voting, and how people vote. There's a far better balance to the whole system than can ever be achieved with what we got this time around.

(But I will point out that there'd also be a period of adjustment, of bedding in, if we switched to PR - it would take a while for people to understand it and get used to it).

[worm]

it's a common philosphical 'point'. Does anyone do anything totally selflessly?

[worm]

It seems we are happy to accept the sensationalism that accords with our own view, but dismiss that that we oppose. Not a particularly useful approach Id suggest

[worm]

State institutions do think and they are invoative - no matter what the tellograph says. Espeshally when you get down to Local Government you'll find a lot of people who are very commited to their cause working hours and hours of unpaid over time to help society.

[llcoolphil]

it's a common philosphical 'point'. Does anyone do anything totally selflessly? We might do things that also do good for others, but how many do anything if there isn't anything to be got out of it... even if it's simply for the satisfaction of helping others and/or doing the 'right thing'?

[bunique]

Phil, what kind of things are the community where you live providing in place of the state?

[llcoolphil]

Phil, what kind of things are the community where you live providing in place of the state?

Edited February 19, 2011 by llcoolphil

[llcoolphil]

spot on tony.

[llcoolphil]

I was interested

In part, due to my scepticism of getting 'outsiders' involved, I thought I'd rather it was me than certain other people...

totally selfish

nothing to do with power

[worm]

well not everyone's a f**kin genius who knows everyf**kingthing

Edited February 19, 2011 by worm

[worm]

does it matter?

[llcoolphil]

you're doing it because you think it's a good thing...

possibly because you want to be acknowledged in your community

possibly because your ego needs massaging

maybe to stop you being bored

who knows?

does it matter?

[feral chile]

well not everyone's a f**kin genius who knows everyf**kingthing

it was a repsonse to Phil's seeming questioning that volunteers do things for totally selfless reasons

I can't work out whether that's a positive or negative statement..

so I don't know how to respond to it

it doesn't have profit as it's main or, most of the time, only aim

Edited February 19, 2011 by feral chile

[llcoolphil]

don't worry about it, I don't think you're the only one