Liverpool withdraws from government 'big society' pilot

Source - BBC News

 

The leader of Liverpool City Council has written to the prime minister withdrawing its involvement from his "big society" plans.

 

The city was one of four pilot areas for the scheme, aimed at giving community groups and volunteers more control over their local services.

 

But council Leader Joe Anderson said government cuts had threatened the future of many local volunteer groups.

 

He has now told David Cameron he can no longer support the initiative.

 

When he announced the "big society" in Liverpool last July, Mr Cameron said community groups should be able to run post offices, libraries, transport services and shape housing projects.

 

The concept would be a "big advance for people power", he said.

 

While reducing the budget deficit was his "duty", the prime minister said giving individuals and communities more control over their destinies was what excited him and was something that had underpinned his philosophy since he became Conservative leader in 2005.

 

 

Joe Anderson said Liverpool was 'very much committed' to working with community groups Merseyside television producer Phil Redmond has already attacked the "big society" idea, saying it has been undermined by public spending cuts.

 

The Brookside creator had originally been a fan of the concept, taking charge of a project involving volunteering and cultural activities in Liverpool.

 

Joe Anderson said in his letter: "You will recall that you announced Liverpool as one of four "big society" vanguard areas last summer with Phil Redmond leading the initiative.

 

"Later in the year, Liverpool City Council was asked to assist in this initiative around some key projects, including running a 'parallel vanguard programme'.

 

"We took up this challenge wholeheartedly and have invested significant resources to deliver this substantial programme of activity."

 

However, he said the government promised to work with the council to "remove some of the problems and blockages" that were preventing them from making the programme work.

 

He said the government had failed to deliver any of the changes the council asked for.

 

Mr Anderson, who is leader of the Labour Party in Liverpool, said: "Liverpool has been doing the "big society" for many years. We call it 'working with our communities' and it is something we are very much committed to."

 

But he said the loss of more than £100m of Area Based Grants to Liverpool has put many organisations at risk.

 

"How can the city council support the big society and its aim to help communities do more for themselves when we will have to cut the lifeline to hundreds of these vital and worthwhile groups?," he said.

 

"I have therefore come to the conclusion that Liverpool City Council can no longer support the big society initiative, as a direct consequence of your funding decisions."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As far as I'm concerned this pretty much confirms what I already thought about "Big Society", a load of spin and hot air which will absolutely fail to actually deliver because the Government are forcing cuts to the funding of the voluntary orgs that are actually trying to deliver it on the ground....

 

A bit like trying to grow vegetables with no seed or fertiliser....... -_-

Oh but there's more. The person brought in by the Tories to work out the detail of "the Big Society" has reduced his working week from three days to two. Why? Because he wasn't able to do voluntary work (the Tories didn't tell him it was voluntary until just before they announced his appointment, it must have slipped their mind) for three days a week. He needs more time to earn money - you know, that thing that pays the bills. So where exactly are all these volunteers going to come from?

At the end of the day though - Cameron and Clegg and their deputies don't give a stuff if people 'go' for the 'Big Society'. It makes no difference to them one way or the other if it succeeds or doesn't succeed. It will have no impact on them as they're part of the 'high' society. The only way it will have an impact on them is if anarchy on the streets (and in those leafy suburbs) results.

 

Kath

 

 

Oh but there's more. The person brought in by the Tories to work out the detail of "the Big Society" has reduced his working week from three days to two. Why? Because he wasn't able to do voluntary work (the Tories didn't tell him it was voluntary until just before they announced his appointment, it must have slipped their mind) for three days a week. He needs more time to earn money - you know, that thing that pays the bills. So where exactly are all these volunteers going to come from?

This buffoon has now suggested that councils should force their staff to go part-time - on lower wages, naturally - so that they can use their extra free time to do voluntary work. Does this idiot know how much the average council worker gets paid?

Hilariously, Cameron is refusing to let go of the 'Big Society'; he's going to make another keynote speech on it on Monday. Methinks this will end up being what 'Back to Basics' was for John Major.

 

I actually think Cameron isn't as wicked as Osborne, who just doesn't care about the poor - I think Cameron is so utterly out-of-touch that he genuinely thought that an army of volunteers all over the country would spring up and replace the things his government was pulling the plug on. He's always lived in a bubble of wealth and privilege, where he sees people who are so wealthy that they have the time and money to do lots of volunteering, and he genuinely thought people from Newcastle and Liverpool would be able to do the same, not realising that they have to work 9-to-5's just to feed their kids and have very little in time or money left afterwards. Devolving power downwards is all well and good, but you need to pass down the government money for local communities to do all this stuff as well - so the fact Cameron tried to launch this at a time he'd chosen to severely rein in spending means it was always going to be an utter failure.

It's not just their own backgrounds, just look at the constituencies they represent. These are the figures from the 2007 Almanac of British Politics so they are a few years old now

 

Witney (Cameron)

 

Average household disposable income (i.e. income minus direct taxes) in 2006 - £453 per week

Unemployment in March 2006 - 0.8%

Average property value 2006 - £244,000

 

Tatton (Osbourne)

 

Average household disposable income (i.e. income minus direct taxes) in 2006 - £422 per week

Unemployment in March 2006 - 1.4%

Average property value 2006 - £249,000

 

So neither of them will have come across many of the least well-off in their constituency work.

 

For the record, Nick Clegg's constituency is almost as affluent, unlike the rest of Sheffield (which at least means he doesn't have to go far from his constituency to see what life is like for many people).

 

On the other hand,

 

Doncaster North (Miliband E)

 

Average household disposable income (i.e. income minus direct taxes) in 2006 - £304 per week

Unemployment in March 2006 - 5.6%

Average property value 2006 - £104,000

 

I think Cameron does at least appreciate that he has had a very privileged upbringing although I think he struggles to understand just how privileged. I don't think Osborne has a clue.

 

It's not just their own backgrounds, just look at the constituencies they represent. These are the figures from the 2007 Almanac of British Politics so they are a few years old now

 

Witney (Cameron)

 

Average household disposable income (i.e. income minus direct taxes) in 2006 - £453 per week

Unemployment in March 2006 - 0.8%

Average property value 2006 - £244,000

 

Tatton (Osbourne)

 

Average household disposable income (i.e. income minus direct taxes) in 2006 - £422 per week

Unemployment in March 2006 - 1.4%

Average property value 2006 - £249,000

 

So neither of them will have come across many of the least well-off in their constituency work.

 

For the record, Nick Clegg's constituency is almost as affluent, unlike the rest of Sheffield (which at least means he doesn't have to go far from his constituency to see what life is like for many people).

 

On the other hand,

 

Doncaster North (Miliband E)

 

Average household disposable income (i.e. income minus direct taxes) in 2006 - £304 per week

Unemployment in March 2006 - 5.6%

Average property value 2006 - £104,000

 

I think Cameron does at least appreciate that he has had a very privileged upbringing although I think he struggles to understand just how privileged. I don't think Osborne has a clue.

 

Osborne isn't actually from Tatton (which is North Cheshire in case anyone was wondering, it's actually only about ten minutes from me and I know several people from Knutsford who have him as their MP - poor souls), he was brought up in London. I doubt very much that he does ANYTHING as a local MP, something you probably couldn't say for members of the last Cabinet.

Osborne isn't actually from Tatton (which is North Cheshire in case anyone was wondering, it's actually only about ten minutes from me and I know several people from Knutsford who have him as their MP - poor souls), he was brought up in London. I doubt very much that he does ANYTHING as a local MP, something you probably couldn't say for members of the last Cabinet.

And Nick Clegg isn't from Sheffield. I was merely pointing out that, in addition to his wealthy background, he also represents a very affluent constituency. If only Martin Bell had decided to go for a second term :( (although, of course, if he had, young Gids would have found some other safe seat instead).

Osborne isn't actually from Tatton (which is North Cheshire in case anyone was wondering, it's actually only about ten minutes from me and I know several people from Knutsford who have him as their MP - poor souls), he was brought up in London. I doubt very much that he does ANYTHING as a local MP, something you probably couldn't say for members of the last Cabinet.

 

I wish I was rich enough to live in Tatton or Knutsford! Outside of London isn't this part of the world the richest in England? The Duke of Westminster owns most of it doesn't he? I don't think Osborne needs to do anything for that constituency.

I wish I was rich enough to live in Tatton or Knutsford! Outside of London isn't this part of the world the richest in England? The Duke of Westminster owns most of it doesn't he? I don't think Osborne needs to do anything for that constituency.

 

It is, but by contrast my constituency (Altrincham and Sale West) is right next door and it's not far behind in wealth, but Graham Brady does a hell of a lot more in the area.

My constituency (Durham North) is Labour, but my Electoral Ward is painfully Tory, much like most of West Washington, quite affluent in some areas, contrary to the fact that it's NE England!

David Cameron writes on this in the Guardian today:

 

For example, if neighbours want to take over the running of a post office, park or playground, we will help them. If a charity or a faith group want to set up a great new school in the state sector, we'll let them. And if someone wants to help out with children, we will sweep away the criminal record checks and health and safety laws that stop them.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...ig-society-good

 

Just general lol.

David Cameron writes on this in the Guardian today:

 

For example, if neighbours want to take over the running of a post office, park or playground, we will help them. If a charity or a faith group want to set up a great new school in the state sector, we'll let them. And if someone wants to help out with children, we will sweep away the criminal record checks and health and safety laws that stop them.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...ig-society-good

 

Just general lol.

Why just general lol? Anyone who works closely with children or who is likely to be alone with a child will still have to undergo checks. However, the government are doing away with a lot of the checks which were introduced as a knee-jerk reaction to the Soham murders. Why should a parent who helps out at school sports day or on the odd school trip have to undergo a criminal record check?

To be honest, I find it more hilarious that David Cameron wrote a article for THE GUARDIAN.