Jump to content

Big Society/Community what's new about it?

Geoffrey Settle

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, that's one way of seeing it, though I don't have problem with the concept in principle, but...


Liverpool Council, charged with being at the vanguard of this, have withdrawn their support for it:




With dazzling irony, the Big Society "Tsar", finds working for nowt not as appealing as he first thought:


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23920428-how-my-top-government-job-left-me-almost-penniless-and-unable-to-support-my-family.do (the link says it all, really).

So, no alarm clock hero he.


Add to this the cuts in funding to organisations like CAB (who provide a valuable service - often by volunteers), Sure Start and other volunteer groups (people who are used to managing volunteers), it's not getting off to a very good start.


Loved the irony of this loosely related news, which highlights just how far out of touch these pillocks are:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn,t John Major try the same thing, but in a different name. Hiis MPs let him down as he let himself down with Edwina. The idea was good though, although simply repeating the neighbourly old time state.


On a perhaps lighter note (pun), I read in the paper that special beds are having to be bought and small cranes to lift people on to them.


Happy days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fugtifino makes a very valid point with his last paragraph.


Whilst the idea is ok, the expectation that the "Third Sector" is going to fill all the jobs that council/gov. have got rid of is a nonsense.

Already, the present volunteers are losing interest because of the funding cuts at grass roots and cuts to the other agency's like Age Concern, CAB and others. Volunteers could call on these groups for advice and expertise. In a lot of cases, it will no longer be there.


This is the start of the slippery slope, where society is going back in time.

The gov. thought that with all these over 50's retiring or being made redundant, that they would step in and fill the breech. I'm sorry, but it ain't going to happen. The volunteers of Warrington are already disallusioned about losing what has been available for years, and are walking away.


PS.WBC were asking volunteers to log their time spent volunteering, 12 to18 months ago. I wonder why. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a valid point Pete especially with your years of dedicated service.


I know from driving a mini bus every Tuesday for the Blind Society the changes that they are having to make to survive. Should I be filling in my timesheet Pete :?:


It's been very hard for them building up a good base of volunteers but this alone has not kept the wolf at bay. Last year they had to start ask members to make a contribution towards transport costs.


They are very grateful to the Warrington Wolves for allowing them to make a collection at the ground during a match last season. Without this money even more facilities would have been under threat.


So if you made a donation last year, thank you very much :D .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that's a centurian then Obs - ?100 very generous :wink:


Just been watching Question Time in Workington. The Government spokesman fell heavilly on his sword.


He stood no chance on the sale of woodland, he simply couldn't come up with one reason to support it and faced a barrage of resistance from the rest of the panel and everyone isn the audience.


Then he tried to explain the Big Society and the result was the same.


Either the Immigration minister Damian Green MP was poorly briefed or the ploicies can't even be defended by his own party?


You decide by wathing this week's the programme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like a typical knee jerk reaction to the sale of woodland. Here is the consultation document for you to read and THEN make up your mind if its good or bad:




There's nothing worse than deciding something without looking at the facts. This is usually the way with Question Time audiences, and some posters on here. :wink::wink::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well. the longer this arguement spins out, the less easily it is being defended by the Gov. They argue that only 18% of land is held by the Forestry Commission - therefore, why the need for "competition"? They now concede, that there will be little or no saving or profit from this exercise - so why bother in the first place? Seems this and other "initiatives" are being driven by ideology rather than budget responsibility - and those soft LibDems are going along with it all! :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why you think that as I haven't offered an opinion either way. I have, however, read the consultation document. Have you, or are you just giving your knee jerk reaction? :roll::roll::roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick point asp, I thought you did not trust government documents :?:


Another one who makes things up about me. I don't think I've ever put a blanket ban on trusting government documents. I am sure you will have evidence of this? :roll::roll::roll:


And I don't mean my belief that all politicians lie through their teeth because thats a taken :wink::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said to Geoff, I haven't posited an opinion either way so how you can decide that I agree with the document (which I assume you have actually read :?:? ) is somewhat beyond comprehension. :roll::roll::roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...