The Big Society - what does it mean?

[DJKillaQueen]

The glaring point that is being missed is the inability of the private sector to create anything like the number of jobs needed to validate the verbal attacks on the unemployed. In many areas of the country, the unemployed outnumber vacancies 8-1. The private sector didn't deliver during Labour's boom years, and there's no way it will deliver during the coalition years. It's a misguided view of the economy.

So I can only be left concluding that the likes of Cameron really do not care that millions of people will be pushed to breaking point on benefits and low incomes that don't even cover the most basic costs of living, with no hope of finding a job no matter how hard they are squeezed.

[Huguenot]

Here in Singapore the government just made available $300m to any company that wants to create a digital product that will sell in China. In return the government get equity, but at better rates for the company than they'd get from business angels.

I'd prefer the UK government to do that rather than give hand outs to the unemployed. Especially because there's a return to the taxpayer at a later date.

Cameron doesn't seem to want to do either.

[RosieH]

The Big Society, as a concept, is a great idea, wrapped in a terrible name - the 'big' doesn't accurately reflect the idea of millions of individuals getting involved in things that matter to them.

East Dulwich is actually already an incredible microcosm of what the Big Society aims to be (something for which this very forum is owed no small thanks): a brilliant sense of community, people getting involved, whether it's through SNUB, forumites lining up to clear neighbours' paths or run a people's supermarket, playing football in the park, Give n Take, auctions for charity. I actually feel very proud to be part of a community that's as engaged and connected as ours is.

The Big Society concept was launched before the Tories were in power (although to be fair, it seemed inevitable at the time that they'd get in). I honestly don't believe it was intended to be a pre-emptive fig leaf for swingeing cuts, however, whether due to Conservative ideology or coincidence of timing with the budget deficit, that is what it has since become, in perception and perhaps in reality.

The communication of what it is all about has been a complete abortion and I don't know whether it can recover, in spite of Cameron belatedly reaffirming his support in the last couple of weeks. But as a very basic idea, making it easier for individuals to do something about the things that matter to them, it has huge merit. Quite whether it can deliver remains to be seen.

[Marmora Man]

RosieH - thank you for your words of common sense. I support fully your statement.

[zeban]

Me too!

And I agree about East Dulwich. I've lived in a lot of areas of London and East Dulwich is the only area where I've felt a real sense of community which I'm also proud of, and on a personal level really grateful for.

[Asset]

I feel that there is such an 'us and them' attitude regarding the government. We live in a democracy and the government are supposed to be representing the people. Personally I don't feel that Cameron represents the majority sadly but then really - who would? Waynetta slob?

With regard to this massive national debt - who exactly is it owed to and what would happen if the country just defaulted on the debt? What would happen?

[zeban]

Asset Wrote:

> With regard to this massive national debt - who

> exactly is it owed to and what would happen if the

> country just defaulted on the debt? What would

> happen?

I've wondered that too Asset

[????]

It's owned by holders of the debt - institutions, pension funds, foreighn ( an awful lot of it) and the UK. If we defaulted we'd be unlikely to borrow anymore for a fair while and have a junk rating and thus massive interest rates for any future borrowing. Given that our govt continually spends more than they earn, we'd end up having to slash our Public Spending as we'd have no money to pay for the shortfall except by printing even more money =hyper inflation. It would take a while to recover any credibility - but countries do default (Argentina and Russia fairly recently) and I think we did last in thwe 18th Century but it really is equivalent to a personal bankruptcy/defaulting on your mortgage but refusing to give back the keys...

...in the future, if the US defaults on its massive and spiralling debts, which is a possiblity, the chinese may start threatening them with more than just words. We used to use gunboats for reming contries of their debt obligations when we were top dogs - the chinese may be there at some point.

It is just basic economics we can borrow money cheaply 'cos we have a first class AAA record of paying it back and the lenders still believe that we have (just...and recently) got our spending and overall debt under control.

A nation defaulting on it debt is not what we should aspire to ....do you sapire to going bankrupts personally?

[Asset]

I don't know - perhaps we should all live within our means a little more.

So has the infrastructure of Argentina and Russia collapsed after their defaulting? Or not?

[????]

I don't know - perhaps we should all live within our means a little more.

That's why some of us have given up on Labour

[SeanMacGabhann]

Succesful countries never have and never will "live within their means"

Comparing individual housekeeping with national spending is a fallacy

Which is not to say the deficit doesn't need addressing. But whilst there are good reasons to not vote labour, the global economy tanking isn't one of them. History will judge the improvements in infrastructure under labour kindly (proportional to spending or not )

How history judges the current governments handling of the economic situations remains to be seen

[????]

Spending on Infrastructure by using borrowed money - give or take the odd Millenium Dome - I have no problem with....much of the massive expansion in public spending under Labour has been on a massive expansion in Public Sector employment and a significant rise in public sector salaries (some of it deserved to be clear). PS unions are the major funders of the Labour Party, sponsor a very large large %age of their MPs and PS workers are far more likely to vote Labour (Golden gooses and Eggs) so people in the private Sector, the majority of whom aren't fat bankers, now earn less on average, have very little pension provision if at all and still take less sick days, work longer hours unpaid and have faced job insecurity as a fact of life since the late 70s (welcome to our world the public sector), etc etc have started to question that...although still get met by and large with "nurse bashers, Teacher haters, etc etc for daring to even question this blatant inequity.....

[SeanMacGabhann]

I don't see the increasing insecurity of private sector workers as something to aspire to

If public sector workers are better off these days then (as a private sector worker) I say well done. That is success to me. If labour spent massively on public sector then I see that as catching up on lost years. I don't see it as waste. If the private sector could do the same thing they would. But by definition they can't. Private companies exist to make money. And that's good. That's great. But not everything good makes money

And if the global economy hadn't tanked, labours spending would be unremarkable. Everything is linked.... I'm not saying public good, private bad. I'm not saying bankers are entirely at fault. We are where we are

But ideologically there wasn't much wrong with the public sector expansion. A lot of people benefited. And whether they are necessary or ideologically driven the current cuts will harm a lot of people. Directly and indirectly. I don't mind harsh but necessary decisions. But I'm no longer convinced that is what this government is engaged in

I understand other people think differently. But we will see in the long run I guess

[zeban]

I agree with every single word of the above post Sean

[Asset]

I think that your comment Sean implying a comparison between national spending to 'housekeeping' somewhat disingenuous - is looking after the country on our behalf not just a larger scale of 'housekeeping'? (quaint term).

The idea of the country defaulting on the debt was brought to my attention by an economist and it seems not such a bad idea to me - all those poor big corporations and insurers not receiving income from 'owning' debt - diddums.

I'm no economist or banker so I can't get into an argument about it as obviously I don't know what I'm talking about - I'll just get back to the housekeeping.

Big Society - take me there.

[????]

And if the global economy hadn't tanked, er that's capitalism...you didn't really believe no more and bust really did you? We were on a path of unsustainable spending from about 2000...sfter GB ditched his actual prudence.

Sean long term..., our demographics and the change (and expense) in medical improvements and increase in life expectancy make our PS pensions and our healthcare bill look pretty unsustainable. Recessions etc are an irrevelance in this. Go and ask the Japanese brilliant healthcare, brilliant pensions, slowly but surely going bust.....I like this no more than you but got to be faced up to. I'd be in favour of a universal state pension that was at proper and decent retirement level...but that would mean the Public Sector sharing their tax payer funded pool...can't see it happening. GB already fooked up tax on private pensions so he could spend spend spend on Publc Sector. Final salary collapsed in the private sector because it was unsustainable...these exact pressured (demography and life expectancy) exist in the Public Sector but this unsuatainable inconvenience should be funded by All tax payers (which inclues the 80% of taxpayers not in the public Sector)?

Go and get the money of that tree again

[????]

So Zeban we default on our debt..how do we exactly pay next years bills which are hevily funded by debt if we can't borrow anymore? Or embark on any decent infrastructure project - hint hint, these need capital upfront funded by borrowing sorty of like how you buy a house.

Jesus wept...

[????]

don't pay the credit card bill ever again, go on, you rebel UK sovereign debt ignorer, that'll learn em....

[zeban]

.

[????]

No we are trying to reduce some of our annual public spending bill which is significantly above our tax take so as we can start paying off some of our debt, reduce annual interst payments, so our cash can be spent on our services etc and maintain a decent credit rating for future borrowing requirements..and stop it spiralling out of control.

The belief that it will be 'rich bankers' who will suffer if we default rather than the poorest and most vunnerable in our society really shows how little people understand this and what the actual consequences would be...Excuse the patronisation, but learn something about economics all of us please. Russia and Argentina have some of the widest and most visible and obscene differences between rich and poor on the planet....

If you want 4th world public services, let's default that'll show em

[Asset]

http://medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=50

Not sure if any of you have seen this website - usually quite a lot of food for thought. Interesting discussion going on about the sustainability of global capitalism and corporate governance.

The addition of 'Jesus wept' at the end of your post Quids implies that we are all stupid and only you have the answer. We are just attempting some debate - and yes you are being patronising, why should we excuse it?

Don't you think the UK has a fairly wide gap between the rich and the poor?

[zeban]

I was also going to pull you up Quids on being patronising, there really isn't any need for it.

[????]

I'm sorry Asset but it's dificult to comprehend that people really think we should default, I'm honestly quite flabergasted at how naive people, and I guess I have to say you, are about this and what a disaster it would be. Can you imagine would happen to that gap if we did and effectively our public spending became unfundable.... overnight...and you think that would hit the rich the hardest? People can debate about Cigarettes having no link with Cancer if they want, i'm not joining in.

I will look at the link, I'm all for workable alternatives to what we've got (global capitalism) haven't found one yet that's all.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm totally with quids on the default thing. I thought when the idea was mooted yesterday noone would take it seriously and I too am flabbergasted to see it given credence

[Asset]

As I said - it was an economist that brought the subject up with me and I'm only asking what would happen. I'm no expert. I do however remember that when I studied a unit of economics for my degree I came to the conclusion that it is an extremely inexact science and that most economists spend their time arguing with each other as none have the answer!

I bow to your superior knowledge that defaulting is not the way to go and I won't mention it again.