Stop Press - Power to the People

DC Unveils plans for Big Society - Telegraph

Local communities will get the power and money to run bus services, set up broadband internet networks and take over neighbourhood recycling schemes under a mass transfer of power from the state to the people.

Hmmm didn't we try this before - about 300 years before?! Before we decided it would be more efficient and civilised to organise things centrally from our elected government?

My local neighbourhood will probably be quite pleased as we have a couple of right bossy busy-bodies willing to organise everything for us whether we like it or not. Jury is still out on whether future historians will claim 'ah, 2010! That was the year the Big Society came in, and what a load of BS it turned out to be, too' :rolleyes

Did you see that rabbit run down that hole! I'm sure it was checking a pocket-watch.

The Big Society Bank, a fund which will allocate the proceeds of dormant bank accounts worth hundreds of millions of pounds to help set up volunteer schemes to improve communities.

Accounts left untouched for at least 15 years will be channelled to good causes. Over time, Mr Cameron said, the Bank would provide “hundreds of millions of pounds” to Big Society projects, with money starting to be distributed from April.

Well aside from the fact that such money belongs to someone (or their estate) I doubt it's enough to finance the total cost of devolving government down to a local level which is how he makes it sound. Though if successful I guess we can stop paying MPs wages can't we as we won't need central government at all.

I may be wrong, but at first glance this sounds like. "We don't intend to maintain local services so get out there and do it yourself or go without"

I think merry has realised something there.

It will work in the sense of things will get done in areas where there are willing busy bodies with the time and energy. This does not mean it will be a success as there could be a backlash from people like the merrys who don't like what is organised for them.

But in areas where they struggle to find anyone who gives a damn what will happen there. My local council tried a thing called area boards and the response was dismal. People just aren't interested.

The dormant accounts thing is a debt for the future isn't it.

The money can always be reclaimed at any time by its owner. So if that happens who will pay the owner back because the money will have been spent.

"We don't intend to maintain local services so get out there and do it yourself or go without"

and

things will get done in areas where there are willing busy bodies with the time and energy. This does not mean it will be a success

I think that's exactly what this is. On top of which, when it all goes pear-shaped, it will be all our fault - because we were running the services that failed, not the I'm-all-right-Jack old Etonians we are currently paying to run centralised services for us.

And who are going to be front-runners to be the local busy-bodies with time and money and energy - and an established organisational structure??? It'll be the churches, and of course the mosques. Who will target services at the "deserving", of course. No services for you if you're the wrong denomination/sexual orientation/social class (unless you doff your cap a lot) etc. etc.

If there's no oversight, no accountability, no quality control for delivery of services I think there's a very real risk of increasing the ghettoisation and fragmentation of our already-a-bit-fragmented (thanks to "no such thing as society" Thatcher) society.

Following Tony Blair as the most right-wing Labour PM, possibly ever (and ignoring Gordon Brown as the most useless), David Cameron may well turn out to be the most left-wing tory since Ted Heath. If it all turns out to be a way of saving 'big government' money and a dismantling of the nanny state then it's ok by me.

I hadn't thought of the churches stepping in. Now I'm really depressed.

'dismantling the nanny state' would be a good thing. I'm all for that really. I just don't think this will do it. I think it's a gimmick - a political trick to muddy the waters and help cover the loss of services.

Dismantling the nanny state will lose services. That's what it means. The trick is to dismantle the right ones, for example tax and pension credits. All means tested benefits are horrendously expensive to administer.

Tax credits would be difficult to get rid of because of the political fall out that would result, but scrapping pension credits wouldn't leave many people worse off because the savings could be used to give a decent state pension to everyone.
Many of those that would be substantially better off from a bigger state pension would fall into income tax when they formerly would not have done so, so they'd give it back that way. Net cost to the exchequer would be minimal as collecting income tax is very efficient.

As for the churches stepping in, I'm a bit less pessimistic about that than you, Pani. Although I can understand your unease, provided they treat everyone equally, including those they don't particularly like such as heretics, gays and lesbians, then I welcome them having the opportunity to actually do something useful for a change.

Hosted by Arvixe